@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.

@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.”

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

@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.”

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

@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.

@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.

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

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

[publichealth.jhu.edu]

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

@TheMiddleWay [bible.knowing-jesus.com]

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

@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.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.

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'.

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.

@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.

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

@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.

@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.

@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.

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

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.