[cletus]

Not you specifically but lots of people have tried to conflate restrictions for unvaccinated people to various historical blights including, but not limited to, Jewish persecution in Nazi Germany, South African Apartheid (google the phrase "medical apartheid"), the institution of slavery in the United States and so on.

None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves.

So policies that apply to unvaccinated people aren't analogous for the simple reason that you can choose to get vaccinated in almost all cases (side note: the very few people with a valid medical exemption shouldn't be subjected to these kinds of policies IMHO).

So it's not a lack of body autonomy that's going on here. It's just that those choices come with consequences. You don't want to wear a mask? No one is holding you down and putting one on you. But you can't fly on a commercial plane either.

I too believe strongly in body autonomy, which is one reason why I fully support reproductive rights, including access to abortion. What I find particularly ironic is in the Venn diagram there's a seemingly large intersection between the unvaccinated, those who oppose restrictions on unvaccinated people and those who support restricting access to abortions. Again, not you, specifically.

It's worth adding that this isn't purely a personal choice. If it was, I don't think anyone would be upset about it. There are documented cases of contact tracers who can directly establish links between a given person spreading Covid and the deaths that result from that. What about the people who medically cannot get the vaccine? Or are immunocompromised? If you oppose the vaccine because of the extremely low risks of negative side effects, remember your choice affects other people.

It's riskier to drive in a car than to get the Covid vaccine.

The term "body autonomy" here just doesn't apply. "Consequences to personal choices" is far more accurate.

[angelzen]

Conspicuously missing the persecution of Kulaks and Christians, among others, in the Soviet Union. Side note aside, some of those historical blights hinge on the choice of religion / ideology. You'd think that choosing the correct gods to worship is a fairly easy choice. Freedom of thought, freedom of religion? Pshaw, the State knows better what the population must think. For the common good, social harmony, the luminous future, etc, etc, etc...

[gruez]

>None of these apply of course for one simple reason: a black person in South Africa can't simply choose not to be black to escape Apartheid. American slaves couldn't simply choose not to be slaves.

so the chinese forcing the Uyghurs to abandon their culture is totally fine, because all they have to do is stop practicing it?

[maxerickson]

You've inferred in the opposite direction of the other poster here. They started with conflations and said they didn't apply for a reason. You are starting with the reason and applying it to a conflation.

[incrudible]

You are right, one can not simply choose a racial identity. A more appropriate analogy would be the Inquisition, or perhaps Christian persecution in pagan Rome. Those generally left the option for heretics to renounce their beliefs.

[raxxorrax]

There is religious and ideological prosecution which one could argue could be freely chosen, so it is only a counter-argument under certain definitions.