Human rights are a religion - they don’t exist. We made them up so we can coexist; and so that we can improve the quality of our lives.
What makes discrimination wrong is that it diminishes the well-being of the discriminated against.
So you are welcome to insist that your well-being is being diminished by vaccine mandates but it would be a peculiar argument since most people are choosing to vaccinate because it improves their well-being.
It's not about WHO makes the decision. It's about the inherent quality of the decision being made irrespective of who makes it.
Of course it's your choice to drive your car into a wall at 200km/h, but in the way society uses the word "objectively" and "true" it is objectively true that driving into a wall at 200km/h is detrimental to your well-being. And it is objectively true that in doing so you are making a bad decision.
In the same way that is objectively true that seatbelts save lives, it is objectively true that vaccines save lives. Therefore not doing what's conducive to your well-being is a bad choice.
The metrics, measurements and methods used to arrive at these conclusions are as objective as empiricism allows for.
>Those who don't want to vaccinate also choose to do so because it improves their well-being
Yes. They using the exact same words. Are you convinced by their arguments? I am not.
What I am convinced of is how intellectually dishonest they are in parroting words without bringing evidence to the table.
I recited your argument to her and I am quoting her response in saying… “you are a f-ing idiot - I had no choice in being born black and I had no way of becoming white to avoid the consequences of apartheid. The unvaccinated have a choice - they are just choosing not to exercise it.”
You have falsely equated the two scenarios by abstracting away the thing which matters most: the choice to improve your situation.