system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Does the Violinist argument support people's right to not be vaccinated?

Unfortunately necessary disclaimer: I have been vaccinated for months and my intuitions on this issue are that everyone should be vaccinated for public health reasons. That being said, probably the most common anti-vax argument I see is that you have the right to bodily autonomy so therefore the government shouldn't be able to force you to get a vaccine. The usual answer to this argument is to say that your right to bodily autonomy ends when you begin to pose a risk to other people's health, and when I hear this argument I am (likely intentionally on the arguer's part) reminded of similar arguments over abortion, in particular the Violinist argument. It seems that one could argue that, if the Violinist cannot use your kidneys to continue their life, then the immunocompromised cannot use your immune system to potentially continue theirs. It seems to me like there is definitely some violation of bodily autonomy associated with a vaccine mandate, so should we see it as merely a difference in degree (of both violation and potential harm), or is there a relevant difference here that I have missed?
gpt
The Violinist argument isn't about bodily autonomy, that term, nor similar terms are never mentioned in the paper. Rather the main convincing argument in the paper is

>nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.

Does getting vaccinated require you to make such a sacrifice? No, not at all, in fact quite likely the reverse, it is a clear guarantee of your health, your interests, your concerns etc.

So despite the uncertainty elsewhere in the thread, no it does not support people's right to not get vaccinated.