Agnostic.com

19 5

Seems to me that in the opinion of many on this board, women have Bodily Autonomy when it comes to abortion but not when it comes to getting vaccinated.

By this I mean that the same group of people that lambast people for not embracing autonomy when it comes to abortion also lambast people for embracing autonomy when it comes to the COVID vaccine.

Surely if the basis of embracing abortion is "my body my choice", then that should apply to vaccines as well as abortions.

Can anyone who is both pro-choice and pro-vaccine explain this selective use of autonomy?

TheMiddleWay 8 Dec 7
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

19 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Totally agree. I reject the excuse you should take the vaccine for "public good" as it does not act as a vaccine eg provide immunity/ stop transmission. The covid vaccinations are PPE ie they protect you, and normal PPE eg masks, are worn to protect others. It is double speak 1984 we are in.
A vaccine that provided meaningful immunity.....different story. Then the "public good" story would have some merit because a herd immunity has a chance of succeeding.
Consent is important.

puff Level 7 Jan 3, 2022
1

"my body, my choice" does NOT apply to selling your organs . . .

Nor suicide nor in most places prostitution.

It's a slogan that's sure to bite pro-choice people in the ass just like "defund the police" bites BLM people in the ass

@TheMiddleWay It is a stupidly crude slogan, each issue needs to be addressed on its own, you can not compare any two different issues, whether it be selling organs or prostitution. Abortion or vaccine.

@Fernapple

you can not compare any two different issues,

Sure you can.

"Comparing apples and oranges" is another poor slogan, this time for the futility of comparing two unlike things. But note that apples and oranges do in fact share many similarities as well as differences and understanding both can be, pun intended, fruitful.

Similarly, there are similarities in the public response to covid mandates and the government response to anti-abortion mandates. There are also differences. In this case I'm examining the similarities and differences as relates to body autonomy and at least I find that... fruitful. 😋

@TheMiddleWay Understanding comes from putting the hard work in and continuing to do so. Absolutes and simplicity are the fruits of laziness, and their product inhumanity, while wisdom is mainly to be found in nuance. Albert Maysles said, “Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.”

@Fernapple
I agree completely. There is no Nuance or work involved in comparing an apple to an apple or an orange to an orange

A=A or O=O really says nothing.

There is nuance and work involved in comparing an apple to an orange.

A=O or better yet A~O... Now that can get interesting.

@TheMiddleWay If you are comparing apples and oranges the you will discover nuance. It is equating them that is foolish.

@Fernapple
This is where I go on a rent of set theory versus category theory.

Set theory relies exclusively on equality and thus cannot have nuance.

Category theory on the other hand relies on isomorphism which is a weaker condition of equality and lends itself more to exposing nuance.

The "comparing apples to oranges" slogan is born of a set theory view and I have long held that humanity needs to embrace a category theory of the world in order to transcend our current problems.

1

Conflating two unlike situations. Your "argument" is thus, how do we say this, total crap?

Remember the "comparison and contrast" exercises we did in high school? Where we examined the differences and similarities between two unlike objects or scenarios?

That's all I'm doing here. Though I concede that if you see no similarities but only differences how this exercise would be total crap to you.

2

"My body, my choice" refers to a woman's choice to continue a biological process that is only her consequence. Her decision effects her alone. Trying to tie into the argument the theoretical end of that same biological process is like "putting the cart before the horse". It is very possible that the same pregnancy could end in miscarriage.

In terms of vaccine hesitancy, the phase is more accurate as "YOUR body, my choice".

A brief education on vaccines: no vaccine is 100%. The purpose of any vaccine is to do one simple thing: instruct the immune system to attack a particular protein (usually) so that the immune system is more effective at fighting a potential pathogen. This process results in the following:

  • By being more effective at recognizing a pathogen, the immune system will eliminate that pathogen at a faster rate.
  • Faster elimination of a (in particular) viral pathogen reduces the overall viral load in the body.
  • Reduced viral load in the body does 2 things... reduces the symptoms experienced by the host, and reduces the number of particles expelled by the host which decreases transmission of the virus to a separate host.

The choice to not get vaccinated is a choice, but that choice has consequences. And those consequences are due to the fact that the choice effects others. Hence, "YOUR body, my choice is more appropriate.

Her decision effects her alone.

That presumes that a pregnant woman is alone. If one considers the fetus or embryo as a person, then she is not.

That presumption is, to me, at the heart of the debate

@TheMiddleWay “That presumption [personhood conferred to an embryo] is, to me, at the heart of the debate”

Indeed! Perhaps it’s best to jettison the anti-science antivaxers who weigh in here, show the door to people like me who bring up topics like suicide as an example, right or wrong, of the lack of bodily autonomy, and cut to the chase on abortion?

Can personhood be scientifically, or even philosophically, defined? Some believe that a soul or “divine spark” is formed at the ‘moment’ of conception, which would make embryonic development such as twinning and recombination somewhat problematic. The heart is merely a pump necessary to circulate oxygenated blood, and yet significance is attached to the sound of it in a developing human embryo. I could go on but the fact of the matter is there is no consensus between the theologian, philosopher, biologist and lay person on what constitutes “personhood.”

Is a fertilized egg life? By all means. One need only ask, if we were to travel to another planet and discover multi-celled organisms even in embryonic stage, would we call it life? But does the state have a right to intervene on behalf of an embryo and, just because we have the technology to do so, not only identify the pregnancy but track it to ensure it continues? What happens when, in the not too distant future, scanners are available to ascertain, even from a distance, the presence of a fertilized embryo in a female and report this?

I want no part of a future or even a present where the state controls every aspect of our lives. The right to privacy over one’s bodily autonomy should, in my opinion, be a greater ethical consideration than the protection of what pro-lifers call “the unborn.”

@p-nullifidian

Can personhood be scientifically, or even philosophically, defined?

Uff, right? I think it can be socially defined but science can't weigh in on consciousness so asking it to weigh in on personhood seems far-fetched at this time.

I could go on but the fact of the matter is there is no consensus between the theologian, philosopher, biologist and lay person on what constitutes “personhood.”

Bingo Bango. In such a scenario, the best option becomes a democratic one, with majority rules. OFC, with the religious being a majority in the USA, the best option will always be the worst option for some.

The right to privacy over one’s bodily autonomy should, in my opinion, be a greater ethical consideration than the protection of what pro-lifers call “the unborn.”

This is kinda where I am right now, that regardless of it being a person or not, there is no doubt that the mother is a person and thus we go with doing what is best for that for which there is no doubt of (mothers personhood) instead of doing what's best for what there is plenty of doubt (embryo/fetal personhood). This is very similar to my theological agnosticism: there is no doubt that you and I are here and thus I will act accordingly... but there is doubt as to gods being there as well and thus that alleged non-secular view will play second fiddle to the actual secular view when it comes to dealing with things that I can prove are real and here.

3

No comparison there. I can't get pregnant but I can contract your virus.

2

i think your comparison here is a bit of the apples and oranges thing. in one situation its about the rights of one individual vs. crowd safety. in the other its about the rights of the individual concering themselves. one says "help", the other, "keep your hands off me".

A fruit salad is to be expected in this incoherent mixture of sociology, politics, science, biology, theology, and philosophy!

So let me add some cantaloupe to the mix!

Aren't laws against suicide or certain drugs also contrary to the philosophy of "my body my choice"?

And here are some watermelon to round the mix!

And if it's true that bodily autonomy only goes so far as it can potentially negatively affect society, then aren't we justified in forcing abortions if said baby carried the term could potentially negatively affect society?

@TheMiddleWay be clear I'm not advocating any posistion, just marinating on it. its very true that we could pick out the cranberries and raisins from now on only to find some peach lover unhappy. if that baby were the spawn of "Alien", perhaps. At least from the human point of view. what is life?, or what is human life? is it worth fretting over? again, point of view.

1

Pregnancy isn't a contagious disease!

Inbreeding can spread deleterious alleles through a population, though they are not contageous diseases as such.

5

I have not seen anyone advocating “forced” vaccination. If such a policy were attempted it would seem unlikely to be upheld by the courts.

Bodily autonomy is bodily autonomy, whether we’re talking about abortion, suicide, or vaccination. Individuals still have the right to refuse to be vaccinated, however the group (society) also has the right to take reasonable measures to protect itself from the spread of the disease. Such measures would include mask mandates in public places and disallowing full participation for those who remain unvaccinated.

People who willfully ignore public health guidance and engage in risky behavior cannot be allowed the same privileges that the rest of us enjoy. And as an employer, I have the right to protect my team and my customers from anyone (employee, vendor or customer) who refuses to comply with our workplace safety policies.

I see no inconsistency in bodily autonomy here.

What privileges are not allowed by someone who engages in unprotected sex with multiple partners... a risky sexual behavior against public health guidance.... and has multiple abortions as a result?

I agree with your viewpoint IF there were some consequences for risky sexual behaiviour. But, taking a page from the more extreme pro-life elements, it seems that as long as I can get rid of the baby, I am free to engage in behaiviours that constitute a public health risk.

@TheMiddleWay The term “baby” is not applicable to this discussion.

Abortion, even as a form of birth control, must remain a protected right no matter what others think of the behavior that resulted in a pregnancy. The end game of these church sponsored restrictions on abortion is clear: an eventual ban of it altogether at any stage, to include RU-486, the so-called morning after pill. These hard-nosed Bible-thumping extremists would have the rest of us believe that a blastocyst or zygote is a human being!

Finally, courts have a upheld a criminal conviction of assault for a person who engages in unprotected sex with an unwitting partner, and who knowingly has a sexually transmitted disease like AIDS.

@p-nullifidian

suicide is not a protected right. In fact several people have lost their body autonomy for attempting or expressing suicide.

How is abortion different such that body autonomy in that case should be a protected right?

I think it comes down to the definition of life, the topic of another thread on this subject.

@TheMiddleWay You're missing a key difference between sexually transmitted infections and droplet/airborne transmitted infections. For STIs you can protect yourself by not engaging in risky sexual behavior, but for things like covid, you can only partially protect yourself. If, however, an STI mutated and became transmissible without sexual contact, the same rules for interacting with society would then apply. Not quite sure how you didn't see this false equivalency as you were typing it.

2

I believe a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion. I'm vaccinated and plan to get the booster shot soon as I can. I think everyone should get vaccinated to help end covid.

Whereupon I think everyone should get an abortion to help end humanity. We've run the experiment, it's a failure, time to let planet Earth give it another go! /s
🤣😂🤣😂

@TheMiddleWay You laugh, but I 100% agree with that statement. Humans are fucking terrible and we should stop reproducing until we die off.

@JeffMurray
You should have leadd with that: You aren't pro-choice after all; you're actually an anti-natalist.

Makes all your other justifications for abortion superfluous since the foundation of your views is that no fetus or embryo should be carried to term, not just those where the woman chooses.

@TheMiddleWay I can't tell if you're joking. If you're not, how can you possibly conclude that? Just because I think someone should do something doesn't mean I think they shouldn't be allowed to CHOOSE for themselves what to do, hence pro-CHOICE. Uugh, if you're not joking I'm pretty disappointed because you should have been able to see this on your own.

@JeffMurray

Haven't joked once in our conversations on this topic. Not sure why you keep looking for one...

If someone said "Blacks are fucking terrible and they should stop reproducing until they die off." I'd conclude that they are incredibly biased against blacks, to the extent that they want them all dead, and as such that everything else they say is on this topic is irrelevant to me because I personally do not want all blacks dead.

So when you say "Humans are fucking terrible and we should stop reproducing until we die off." I conclude the same: that you are incredibly biased against humans, to the extent that you want them all dead, and as such that everything else you say on this subject is irrelevant to me because I personally do not want all humans dead.

@TheMiddleWay
"and as such that everything else they say is on this topic is irrelevant to me because I personally do not want all blacks dead."
This doesn't follow logically. Just because you don't want the same thing as someone else doesn't mean that anything that have to say is irrelevant because a. they can vote or change the minds of other people who vote so it very much could affect you and b. wasn't it you just the other day that misquoted Aristotle saying, “It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it"?

"you are incredibly biased against humans, to the extent that you want them all dead"
This also doesn't follow logically. Just because you want something to stop reproducing (die off) doesn't mean you want all existing instances of that thing to die. Even if it did, it still doesn't follow that my arguments are invalid or illogical. Are you saying one's thoughts on a type of thing are inextricably tied to all your beliefs about how it should exist or not? If one doesn't believe in capital punishment does that mean they love convicts? What if there are layers to these things? It would be impossible for a KKK member to think it's wrong to enact laws that are bad for black people even if the reason is that it's also really bad for white nationalists? In order for an Ad Hominem to not be a fallacious argument, you have to show reasoning why the things you're claiming invalidate their argument. Give the fact that I said women should be allowed to CHOOSE whatever they want in regards to a pregnancy, it's going to be pretty hard to claim my disdain for humans, collectively, means my arguments about bodily autonomy are invalid.

And finally, in trying to draw a parallel between those two, you have made the classic illogical blunder of conflating arbitrary and non-arbitrary reasoning. It's as dumb as saying hatred of racists is the same as racism because you think "hating a whole group of people is the exact same thing no matter what defines the group".

You are off the reservation on this topic. You are making illogical argument after illogical argument and as much as you claim to be neutral on the topic at this point ("only asking questions to see where you stand" ) it seems to several of your readers that it not at all the case. If you still think it is, you need to take a step back and reassess why you're making so many nonsensical claims seemingly in deference to the pro-life argument.

@JeffMurray
I've entertained the thought of wholesale genocide of the human race (and blacks).

And I've concluded that there's no scenario under which I would justify such actions.

As such, I reject your extreme eugenical views the same way I reject most extreme views.

If that makes me uneducated, then I'm comfortable not not having that education. If you think me close-minded on the issue of genocide, you'd be right for my mind is closed on the issue of genocide.

@TheMiddleWay
Who the fuck is talking about genocide? See, this is the ridiculous, nonsensical, illogical shit you've been doing since you started talking about abortion.
And again you conflated arbitrary and non-arbitrary reasoning.
Man overboard.

@JeffMurray
You.

Who the fuck is talking about genocide?

Also you.

Humans are fucking terrible and we should stop reproducing until we die off.

You're technically correct

Genocide traditionally is one group exterminating another group against their will, not this sci-fi scenario where everybody chooses to not have babies and the human race dies off as a result.
But I know no word that describes the desire for the self-imposed wholesale elimination of the human species and hence i went with genocide.

So you're right and I take back the genocide comment. Giving it some thought and I think a better label might be that you support wholesale human extinction.

Yet, regardless of what label we put on it , genocide or human extinction or something else, the bottom line is that your preferred endgame for the human race is there not being a human race which, to me, explains your views on abortion above and beyond anything else you said on the topic.

@TheMiddleWay
Well, you're all kinds of wrong. As I stated in my previous comment, believing one thing about a topic does not necessarily have to inform your beliefs on another. To conclude that it does, and the project that onto someone else, even after they've already told you that's not the case, is the myopic thinking of a child. You also mischaracterized my position as wanting to eliminate humans which still implies actively killing self-sustaining living people. Furthermore, in case you were unaware, I am not a god who can dictate a command and have it followed and I clearly stated that I think women should be able to choose to do whatever they want, so obviously that doesn't equate to advocating the elimination and extinction of humans.

To anyone else reading who doesn't jump to conclusions or pretend they know everything that's in someone else's head, my thoughts on abortion were formed MANY years before my disdain for humans, so it is necessarily impossible that my thinking humans should stop having babies is the reason I think women should be allowed to have control over their bodies. And I don't think I have to say this, because it seems pretty self-evident to anyone who's not clearly blinded by the moral implications of this topic to the point that they can't stop making illogical arguments in defense of the pro-life position, but if my thoughts on reproductive rights were actually informed by my thoughts on humans in general, it seems my position would be anti-choice through forced sterilization.

The MiddleWay has fallen asleep at the wheel and veered far to the right
and can no longer even see the middle in a rational light.

4

Wow...talk about a false equivalence.

1

ending a life in self defense seems valid. apart from that its real tricky.

Yeah. I'm 100% behind abortion when it comes to the mother's health: if it's a choice between me dying to save you or you dying to save me, I choose you dying ever day of the week (no offense 😀 )

In all other circumstance, as you say, "real tricky".

@TheMiddleWay erasing one life to preserve the status of another seems to lay at the center of this debate. real tricky.

@hankster
IF it is even a life.
Tricky on top of tricky.

@hankster By what definition is an embryo / fetus a life?

@TheMiddleWay the word "potential " brings and eliminates some stuff. trickier still - "consciousness ".

@p-nullifidian idk.

@hankster nor do I. 🤗

@p-nullifidian not sure i'd want to. ✌

0

Covid is contagious and could easily help with population control of homo sapian. Abortion of a baby does not seem to be something with a communicable factor and has lower population control rates. One abortion is only eliminating one set of Gene's from the genetic gene Pool at a time. Covid transmission could eliminate a lot of people from just one person not being vaccinated and spreading.

Word Level 8 Dec 7, 2021

Vaccinated people are just as capable of spreading as unvaccinated.

@BDair if spreading is not controlled by vaccines but only giving protection to the person vaccinated, seems to me it should be personal choice.

@BDair Please cite your source for this claim. Studies I’ve seen show just the opposite.

@BDair
Equally Capable? Yes.
Equally Probably? No.

[publichealth.jhu.edu]

1

I'm pro-abortion: Abortion is sometimes the only option under certain circumstances, but abortion, as well as pregnancy, shouldn't be taken too lightly.

I'm pro-vaccine: Vaccination protects oneself as well as others, communities and the entire society. A race to get as many people vaccinated as possible is a race to economic recovery.

(... I was just about to say that abortion does not affect the public health but infectious diseases do... but wait... inbreeding could affect an entire family and beyond with recessive traits if reproduction among genetically closely related individuals was not prevented.)

Ryo1 Level 7 Dec 7, 2021

To be clear, I am absolutely pro-vaccine even if I do have some skepticism about the long term effects of mRNA.

On abortion, I'm not pro-life as I think abortions are a necessary "toolkit" for medical professionals but I'm also not pro-choice as I think the reasons for abortion to be legal rest on the embryo/fetus not being alive and I'm not too sure about that personally.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, they both come with different shades of grey...

0

Seems to me you create complexity of question so that the pretzel is never solvable outside the answer you'd like to see. Here's the simple answer; the fetus's soul is a matter of religious belief and, therefore, unacceptable for removing a constitutional Right (health and happiness both). The vaccine prevents this virus from taking hold, killing the host, and creating mutations which might have no vaccine treatment. They are similar only if one is religious because both are going to kill the life so not taking the vaccine can be viewed (by god if nobody else) as suicide.

>They are similar only if one is religious

There are definitions of life used by scientist that allow for life to begin at conception, NASA's for example

Hence, they can be similar even outside any theological context.

@rainmanjr
I'm not sure what your intention is in bringing that passage from biblical scripture...

@TheMiddleWay That life begins at birth. Not conception. The Bible says so and NOWHERE does it say conception.

@rainmanjr
Nowhere does that passage specifically mention birth or conception.

Problem with scripture: we are free to interpret it as we want, often in contradictory ways.

Again, as my focus is on the scientific definitions of life, not the theological one, I'm still not sure what point you are getting at by introducing this theological interpretation.

@TheMiddleWay Create pretzel logic and worm your way back to an original thesis. That's all you're doing. If abortion is not killing a soul (because first breath determines life) then your equivalence argument falls apart naturally. If not then your Bible is wrong or, at best, convoluted so lacking in authority. However it's read by the individual becomes a hoax "fact" so the authority is anything one wants it to be. Not taking a vaccine, and actually dying b/c of that, is suicide which is against Catholic Law. Willing to risk Purgatory? Go ahead.

@rainmanjr
I'm not a Christian. So it's not my Bible and I don't recognize the existence of a soul.

If there's a point about body autonomy, covid, and abortion that you're trying to make, could you do that without reference to the Bible or religion that I may perhaps better understand your point?

@TheMiddleWay No. The argument is Biblical in nature, since that's the authority for prolife, so that's your answer. There is no equivalency because a fetus is not a soul (your question rests on a fetus being a soul so saying you don't believe in one is duplicitous, as I see it). That's my last remark on this big question and now I will treat it as you folks treat meditation for world peace. That is to say I won't give it another moment's thought since the idea is ridiculous.

@rainmanjr

The argument is Biblical in nature

Then I leave that argument up to you and others who wish to discuss this theologically. I respectfully remove myself from that conversation

3

My body my choice as applied to the covid vaccine is not the same as applied to abortion - last time I checked men have never needed to have an abortion.
Vaccines are also not banned anywhere in the world, abortions are banned in many places and in some have pretty sever penalties for getting one.
The final point is contagion. There is zero risk of infecting someone when a woman decides she would like to have an abortion, there is no public health risk to the general public. The current virus known as COVID-19 and it many variants are highly contagious and seem to cause serious harm to some people.

Do you still think "my body my choice" is a valid pro-choice argument in light of modern genetics, gvien that the embryo has a different DNA than the mother and thus it's not technically her body?

@TheMiddleWay Haven’t women always known that they were hosts to something that was not entirely themselves? Is this not a choice over the disposition of a woman’s uterus? Should society be allowed to reach its ‘hand’ into a woman’s reproductive system and assert a superior right to hers?

@p-nullifidian
Not a woman nor a time traveller so can't say for sure. LOL

But based on the slogan, no. If the notion is that the embryo/fetus is "my body" and thus it's "my choice" what to do with it, then clearly they do not think that the fetus is something not entirely themselves.

As for societies right, our society doesn't allow me to inject whatever substance I want into my body ("illegal" drugs) nor allows me to take my own life for the most past.

So another of the inconsistencies in american law and that slogan is that "my body my choice" means you can legally abort the embryo/fetus because it's your body... but you cannot legally commit suicide even-though that is also your body!

@TheMiddleWay Again, you keep framing the first part of that slogan as taking about the fetus, and it's not, it's talking about the effects on her body. They intend to throw the fetus in the trash, so why would you think that's the genetic material they're talking about?! They are talking about their uterus, their nutrients, and every other part of THEIR body that will be affected by a pregnancy.

As for suicide, yes, it's a contradiction, but the solution is to correct the ban on suicide, not ban abortion. Pointing out that contradiction during an abortion debate amounts to, "Hey, that law is wrong, let's make this law wrong too so we're consistent!" and happens to be a variant of a Tu Quoque logical fallacy.

@TheMiddleWay Never said my body my choice was a valid argument for anything, I attempted to point out using it for 2 completely different circumstances is useless-IMO.
Both instances can have deadly consequences. Thing is abortion can be very easily mitigated with good sex education and idea of contraception placed more on the male than the female.
Both vaccine and abortion issues are hughly complicated by ignorance. I would love to find a way to get thru to people like my sister. She won't get vaccinated and ALL abortions need to be banned.

3

Abortion is banned or heavily restricted throughout the U.S. and a federal crime in many other countries.

Vaccinations are not banned or restricted throughout the U.S or anywhere else.

So... maybe bring up this argument again when these two things are on equal footing.

Two things need be equal before they can be compared.
A lot of groundwork can be covered by comparing two objects that are isomorphic, meaning similar but not equal.

In this case, there is the common lynchpin of Bodily Autonomy that is used in both cases to different effect and it is that lynchpin, not the specific cases, that I'm hoping to examine.

@TheMiddleWay So, if abortion and vaccination were theoretically equal under U.S. federal and state law nor were either stigmatized... then the difference between these two things would be that vaccination reduces/eliminates diseases that otherwise would be responsible for a multitude of deaths or severe and long-lasting health issues.

Abortion only directly affects the person who gets the abortion. So, essentially a vast difference between these two things in regards to consequences to the general public.

I think its as simple as that. Someone across town from me getting an abortion will never directly affect me. But people refusing to get vaccinated can result in a greater spread of viruses that could result in the death or long-term unwellness of myself, my family, and many others. To me, that's a huge difference.

@Charles1971

Abortion only directly affects the person who gets the abortion.

You don't think the friends and family of the person getting an abortion are affected?

Someone across town from me getting an abortion will never directly affect me.

But in that case, the only metric for legality, or morality, is that it not affect you directly. In such a view, you would have no problem with China's abuse of its citizens or Africa's abuse of its women because neither of those actions directly affect you.

@TheMiddleWay Yes, friends and family are affected by an abortion... but friends and family are also affected if one were to get married or divorced or move to Tibet. But we don't (or at least shouldn't) base laws on whether or not something upsets or worries another person. Do you get the consensus of all of your friends and family every time you make an important personal decision?

You missed my point in regards to someone getting an abortion across town not affecting me. My point was that someone across town spreading a transmittable and potentially very harmful and even fatal virus can eventually affect me directly. At no point did I state that the legality or morality of something should be based on how it affects the individual. And abuse of people is harmful to society. But we are not talking about abuse so comparing abuse and abortion doesn't really work well. A better comparison would be comparing abortion and homosexuality, the later of which is is punishable by imprisonment or even death in some countries.

And... is it the legality or abortion that is spurring these questions or is it the morality of abortion that bothers you?

@Charles1971

But we don't (or at least shouldn't) base laws on whether or not something upsets or worries another person.

But that was the basis of your defense of abortion, that it doesn't affect anyone but the person getting the abortion. And I'm not talking about being upset or worried... I'm talking PTSD, financial difficulties, personal relationship breakdown, ostracizing, etc. I'm not saying those are justifiable or wanted, merely that having an abortion is a personal decision but it has non-personal effects.

is it the legality or abortion that is spurring these questions or is it the morality of abortion that bothers you?

Neither. It's the inconsistency of our views and beliefs that bothers me and it's how we choose the line between a person and a thing that interests me.

@TheMiddleWay No... my defense of abortion is not based at all on whether anyone is upset about it. I'm not even sure how you arrived at that. And I'm not aware of anyone getting PTSD because someone ELSE had an abortion. How is someone having an abortion going to cause financial difficulties for another person? I'm really not understanding what you're trying to say.

The inconsistency comes from the fact that we are comparing two very different things. Much like comparing wearing a seatbelt while driving with driving while intoxicated. Both involve vehicles but only one of those could likely result in an accident that could kill other people.

@Charles1971

No... my defense of abortion is not based at all on whether anyone is upset about it. I'm not even sure how you arrived at that

You said "But we don't (or at least shouldn't) base laws on whether or not something upsets or worries another person." I read that to be one of your defenses for abortion.

And I'm not aware of anyone getting PTSD because someone ELSE had an abortion. How is someone having an abortion going to cause financial difficulties for another person? I'm really not understanding what you're trying to say.

I take it you've never gotten a girl pregnant, wanted to keep the kid because you really want kids, only to see that kid be vaccuumed out.
Hard to explain the effect that had on me without you going through the same. Maybe not PTSD, but it definitely affected me, my family, and her family.

The inconsistency comes from the fact that we are comparing two very different things.

@TheMiddleWay You care correct. A very valid defense for making/keeping abortion legal is that whether or not it is upsetting to others is not a valid reason. I ate a hamburger last week and somewhere in the U.S. there is someone who gets upset if other people eat hamburgers. That's not a valid reason to ban the consumption of hamburgers. But do not misunderstand. That is not the ONLY reason to make/keep abortion legal nor is it even the best reason.

And yes, you are correct, I have never gotten a woman pregnant. It's unfortunate that it happened to you and that the woman involved did not wish to continue with the pregnancy. I can only imagine how difficult that must have been for her and for you. Nevertheless, her autonomy over her own body should supersede your personal feelings. At the root of abortion rights is body autonomy. No one should have the right to dictate what you do with your body. No one can forcibly use your blood or your organs or bone marrow... even if it would save someone else's life.... and even if you are dead.

5

It's not a selective use of autonomy.
One has nothing to do with the other.

Abortion has absolutely ZERO to do with the public health.
Being vaccinated against a pandemic and other communicable diseases has everything to do with the public health.

Trying to use these instances as some sort of argument is disingenuous, at best.

The vaccines have nothing to do with public health either. They do not prevent infection with or spread of a virus. At the very best they are alleged to reduce the severity of an infection for an individual. They do not confer any immunity, and do not protect the 'herd'.

@BDair

At the very best they are alleged to reduce the severity of an infection for an individua

That IS a public health benefit though.

No it is not. It is an idiviual treatment. There are many other proven protocols for prevention and treatment that are far more effective than the vaccines. And, acquiring and recovering from 'the virus' does confer a long lasting and robust immunity, and thus contributes to herd immunity and protection of the populace.

@BDair it might appear you are categorically incorrect by thinking vaccinations have nothing to do with public health.

@Davekp Please provide information which proves otherwise.

Abortion has absolutely ZERO to do with the public health.

That depends on whether you think the embryo/fetus is a part of that public or not, now doesn't it? 😉

@BDair True, I have had Sars-Cov-2 twice. I can attest that the vaccine substantially reduces the symptoms and severity of the disease. The first time I caught the virus I was in China in February 2020. During the first ten days or so I experienced extreme fatigue and half way through the second week I experienced shortness of breath.

This year I recieved two does of the vaccine. Approximately, a five weeks ago when I was going to book an appointment for the booster jab, I tested positive and had to self isolate for ten days. During the self isolation period I experienced no symptoms whatsoever and attribute this to the double dose of the vaccine that I received.

@ASTRALMAX How can you know if the benefit was from the vaccine, and not from previous infection?

@BDair The presence of two lots of antibodies in my blood does not exactly provide clarity. The lab report stated that I had the virus within the past six months (very unlikely) because a conditon of my annual seasonal employment in the past six months required that I conducted daily lateral flow tests. During that time all tests returned a negative result. It is possible that antibodies developed after the first infection in February 2020, however, according to some scientists the longevity of antibodies is somewhere in the region of six months.

@BDair

There are many other proven protocols for prevention and treatment that are far more effective than the vaccines

No. There are not. Ivermectin, hydrocloroquine, bleach... none have been proven at the 80%+ efficacy level that vaccines have.

Regardless of the question of choice, scientifically, vaccines are still the best proven bet against COVID transmission.

@TheMiddleWay The vaccines have zero impact on transmission of a virus. They were never trialed for such an endpoint.

@BDair
The vaccine's endpoint was preventing or minimizing symptoms such as coughing or sneezing.
If you aren't coughing or sneezing as much, you aren't spreading the virus as much.
Ergo, by reducing symptoms the vaccines reduce transmission.

@BDair I understand responding to you is more than likely a complete waste of time as you probably do this bait/troll thing for amusement but.. I suppose NOT having a large segment of the population crippled with polio might be something you would recognize as a public health benefit due to vaccination.

@TheMiddleWay Nope. Embryos and fetuses are not part of the public.
If they were, they would have to be counted in a census, which they are not.

Not to mention the fact that no pregnancy, in the entire history of pregnancies, has ever been guaranteed to result in a live birth.

@KKGator
Not being counted in the census is a valid point for them not being part of the public.

However, that murder charges are brought up against the embryo/fetus when a pregnant woman is killed is a point for them being part of the public.

So our laws determine that an embryo or fetus IS alive when someone other than the mother decides to kill it...
... but is NOT alive when the mother decides to kill it.

The legal status of the unborn is a quagmire of different rules which, to me, is a reflection on the quagmire of different definitions of life there are.

@TheMiddleWay The laws that apply murder charges to embryos or fetuses of pregnant women have all been born (no pun intended) of the emotional responses in several high-profile cases. They were largely motivated by the political agendas of those in power.
As I previously stated, those laws are 100% wrong and should be struck down.

At the core of the quagmire you cited, is the overwhelming historical need of men to control women.
Science has fuckall to do with any of it.
It's just another method by which to argue the point.

@KKGator

Science has fuckall to do with any of it.
It's just another method by which to argue the point.

Indeed. The core of my recent line of questions is that I have a hard time arguing one way or another without science to back me up. It's as true of gods as it is of abortion as it is of string theory as it is of space aliens etc etc.

@TheMiddleWay I say this with all sincerity, and absolutely no disrespect intended whatsoever. Since women are the ONLY ones who can become pregnant, they are the ONLY ones who have any right to make the decision.
A man's involvement comes at no other time in the process, except for prior to having sex.
Unless, of course, the woman chooses to include him in HER decision making process.

Anything else is unwelcome interference.

9

Thats very easy, first of all that is a strawman statement about the people on here. Because lambasting someone for making a choice, is not the same thing as saying that they should not have a choice. I for one would defend anyones right to refuse any medical procedure, even at the cost of my, admittedly not very worthwhile life. But I also reserve the right to tell them so if I think that their choice is a stupid one.

A secondly because the two are not the same. In that a pregnancy is not going to affect anyone else, much (maybe a little) except the child, the mother and their close circle. Or in other words it is not very likely that I would catch a bad case of babies, from close contact with a pregnant woman.

Really Middleway you can do so much better than this. This is just sad.

Guess I don't need to write out a lengthy reply...
"Pro-vaccine" does not mean forced vaccination.

Really Middleway you can do so much better than this. This is just sad.

Better than trying to work out my personal stance on an issue by asking questions and expressing opinion?
No.
I'm not better than that.

@TheMiddleWay Yes but your question on abortion yesterday was a really challenging one, which made real demands on thinking. This is not in the same league. Sorry.

Because lambasting someone for making a choice, is not the same thing as saying that they should not have a choice.

That is a salient point.
I'll be more careful disambiguating the could from the should in future conversations.

"Pro-vaccine" does not mean forced vaccination.

But it kinda does if you can't work, travel, or go in public without a vaccination, doesn't it?

n that a pregnancy is not going to affect anyone else, much (maybe a little) except the child, the mother and their close circle.

Strictly speaking, the mere status of being unvaxxinated doesn't affect anyone else either.

@Fernapple

"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”

-John Lydgate

@TheMiddleWay One. The "should" was intended, may be you missed the "not" before it. Please read carefully.
Two. I don't know who you are quoting, but it is not me. Are you drunk ?
Three. By that argument. Strictly speaking, the mere status of driving far too fast in your car does not affect anyone else either. The mere status of being the errector dangerous buildings, does not affect anyone else either. etc. But it is an effect to create risk, even if the risk does not cause direct immeadiate harm. The. "Nobody got hurt when I dropped lighted matches into the gas tank, because there was no petrol in there after all." Is a six year old absolutists argument.

@Fernapple

Two. I don't know who you are quoting, but it is not me. Are you drunk ?

Of course it's not you. That's why I made a clear attribution to John Lydgate.
I guess you missed the point of the quote as well....

But it is an effect to create risk, even if the risk does not cause direct immeadiate harm.

Having an abortion comes with risks that do not cause immediate harm and can affect those beyond the woman as well though. [1]

"Nobody got hurt when I dropped lighted matches into the gas tank, because there was no petrol in there after all."

Never heard this before.
What risk is there [gatewaywomens.care] dropping a match into a gas tank with no petrol?

[1] [gatewaywomens.care]

@TheMiddleWay The John Lydgate quote did not appear until after I made my last reply. The quote I was refering to in two, was.
"Pro-vaccine" does not mean forced vaccination."

The risks of abortion are not relevant, since my whole point was that the anology between abortion and vaccines is not a vallid one anyway.

The point of the petrol tank mataphore, which is a common one, is that the child does not know that the tank is empty before hand. That is so obvious I hardly though it worth going into detail on.

Sorry you clearly are drunk, and I am not going to waste any more time.

@Fernapple

The quote I was refering to in two, was.
"Pro-vaccine" does not mean forced vaccination."

That post was referencing both your's and jeff's quotes.
That's why there is no @fernapple starting the post.

is that the child does not know that the tank is empty before hand

But originally you said there was no petrol in the tank at all. That's what confused me.
So the saying is: "dropping a match into a tank without knowing if there is petrol or not".
Obviously bad.

Sorry you clearly are drunk, and I am not going to waste any more time.

Bye Felicia.

@TheMiddleWay I didn't see this until rereading through. @Fernapple, that quote was of me, so I'll respond.

"But it kinda does if you can't work, travel, or go in public without a vaccination, doesn't it?"
Not really, you can still choose not get the vaccine. The question is: does society have a right to protect itself from members that won't pitch in and do their part to protect others and the answer has to be a resounding 'yes'. Maybe the risks of Covid aren't such that the premise is readily apparent to you. Dial it up a bit and see if the argument makes sense then. Let's say someone [or a lot of people] had been severely irradiated (cause, irrelevant) such that they could irradiated others. Should society and its private entities be allowed to install geiger counters to prevent affected people from entering and harming others? Now let's suppose there was a medication that could be given that would a. reduce the likelihood you could get irradiated from someone else who was, b. drastically reduce the harm the radiation would cause to your body and c. reduce the likelihood that if you had been irradiated, you would irradiate others or severely harm them. You still don't think society has a right to severely limit participation in society by individuals who wouldn't participate in the protection of the society they want to participate in? It's a two-way street... And this would even extend if there wasn't a vaccine. If someone had Ebola they would be force-quarantined, so we can't really pretend that "work, travel, or go in public" is so sacrosanct that we can't deny it if someone refuses a vaccine when as a society we agree we can deny it even if there isn't a vaccine you can choose to take.

11

Pregnancy and abortion are not contagious diseases

Exactly, if having an abortion spread to other women and caused them to lose their lives and fetuses then they would definitely have a right to object.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:637900
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.