"My body, my choice"

Page 3 of 8<123456>Last »
November 8th, 2021 at 1:35:37 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18631
Quote: Mission146
I would argue that your argument is a terrible argument for a few reasons:

1.) What about, "Morning-After," pills? Once again, from the Christian perspective, if there was a conception, then you are as good as killing an individual.

2.) There is no life-saving option for early stage abortions, or at least, not one that I am aware of that is actually offered.

3.) Again, the Christian position is that they are a living and separate human being from the mother, but I'm sure that they wouldn't deny that they need the mother in order to continue to live.

Anyway, there's only one logically and ideologically consistent position: People should be allowed to get abortions if they wish and people should be permitted not to be vaccinated if they don't wish to be vaccinated. "My body, my choice," is either a principle, or it isn't.

If you have an anti-vaxxer who is simultaneously pro-life, then they are also ideologically inconsistent.



I’m not creating a perfect argument for all means of abortion, just one I believe is not the definition of murder and fully supports your body your choice.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
November 8th, 2021 at 1:38:12 PM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 96
Posts: 3092
Quote: JCW09
Not sure I understand what you are saying in the above.


I veered a bit and talked solely about tobacco; zero to do with vaccines.
November 8th, 2021 at 1:41:58 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: rxwine
I’m not creating a perfect argument for all means of abortion, just one I believe is not the definition of murder and fully supports your body your choice.


Actually, this entire country would be better off if these sorts of arguments were framed as, "Your body, your choice." In both cases, you have people wanting to use the Government as an agent to dictate to others what is to be done with their own bodies.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
November 8th, 2021 at 1:43:29 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Pragmatically, I guess the only real difference is that abortions are of great social benefit and not getting vaccinated isn't, or at least, doesn't have any broader social benefit that I can think of.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
November 8th, 2021 at 1:44:55 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18631
Quote: Mission146
Actually, this entire country would be better off if these sorts of arguments were framed as, "Your body, your choice." In both cases, you have people wanting to use the Government as an agent to dictate to others what is to be done with their own bodies.


I disagree. It was right to prevent Typhoid Mary from continuing to act like nothing mattered but her freedom.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
November 8th, 2021 at 1:45:55 PM permalink
missedhervee
Member since: Apr 23, 2021
Threads: 96
Posts: 3092
Quote: terapined
Really. You dont have the right to spread a deadly virus to the masses. This is the exact reason courts have upheld mandates. Its the exact reason why George Washington was pro vaccine


Relax, I am pro-vaccine: it's the logical inconsistency that I am honing in on.

The issue is government control of what goes into and out of our bodies.

Of course there will always be some control, e.g Dept. of Agriculture meat inspection of commercially available meat.

You argue a vaccine is needed to prevent the spread of an unwanted virus; pro-abortionists argue abortion is appropriate to prevent the creation of unwanted human beings.

Both policies are implemented to prevent the occurance of something that the individual does not want to happen

So then, it's "My body, my choice" but with some exceptions?

Does not compute: either we're free or we aren't.
November 8th, 2021 at 1:49:13 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: rxwine
I disagree. It was right to prevent Typhoid Mary from continuing to act like nothing mattered but her freedom.


There are certain laws, and not just relevant to Typhoid Mary, that have focused on punishing those who would use their purported, "Freedoms," to act to the detriment of another person.

For example, if you have a person who knows that they have HIV, then if they go around deliberately having sexual intercourse with people without informing them that they are HIV-positive, then there are some legal ramifications associated with that.

I could see where it might become a slippery slope, particularly if you decide that such a thing should apply to all transmissible diseases, but you could make an argument for someone who knows that they are infected with Covid-19 (whether vaccinated or not) to get into some trouble for willingly taking action that would transmit same to others. I don't know what sorts of restrictions that would entail, or that the risk to life of Covid-19 would even justify such a law, but it certainly wouldn't be without precedent.

There would also be a difference between that and, say, not getting vaccinated. It would only ever apply if you actually knew that you had Covid-19, for one thing.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
November 8th, 2021 at 1:55:22 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 188
Posts: 18631
One argument that hasn’t been pointed out. Even freedom of speech has some limitations. So it would be unprecedented to actually make unfettered liberty the de facto condition.
You believe in an invisible god, and dismiss people who say they are trans? Really?
November 8th, 2021 at 2:11:51 PM permalink
Mission146
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 4147
Quote: rxwine
One argument that hasn’t been pointed out. Even freedom of speech has some limitations. So it would be unprecedented to actually make unfettered liberty the de facto condition.


It's a viable and logically sound argument.

The Libertarian take on Constitutional Rights is that they should extend as far as having unfettered rights only to the extent that you do not infringe upon the Constitutional (or, sometimes, human) Rights of others. One of the most common examples, vis-a-vis Freedom of Speech, is not yelling, "Fire," in a crowded theater. Obviously, and as was decided by SCOTUS, Freedom of Speech protections no longer apply when it comes to a person using speech to create an Imminent Danger to others. Other restrictions, of course, include such things as a call to riot, imminent threats and certain hate speech.

Other protections offered by The Constitution include the right to feel safe and secure in your property and person. Specifically, that's mainly a Constitutional guarantee that relates what the Government can or can't do to you, (as with most Constitutional guarantees, actually) but that's why there are laws outside of the Constitution that cover everything else.

With that, if a person were to attest that forced vaccinations (which could only be done by way of the Government) make them feel unsafe, not secure or that they think (for whatever reason) that the vaccine itself is unsafe, then you end up on extremely shaky Constitutional ground to force vaccinations. The only exception, of course, being Government employees because that's more employer-employee relationship than Government-citizen relationship. Also, Government employees ARE the Government, as opposed to being civilians.

Ultimately, you might say that an individual can have his or her Constitutional Rights violated by virtue of the fact that there being so many unvaccinated people make them feel not safe or secure in their persons.

However, when it comes to Constitutional merit, I think the argument of the anti-vaxxers is more meritorious. They are suggesting that the Government should not force vaccinations, while in contrast, the Government doesn't do anything that would force vaccinated people to be in the company of unvaccinated people.

Anyway, even if the Government were to attempt to force vaccinations for all citizens---you could bet your butt that would be going before the SCOTUS.
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen..let us give them all they want." William T. Sherman
November 8th, 2021 at 2:42:59 PM permalink
JCW09
Member since: Aug 27, 2018
Threads: 12
Posts: 847
The problem is why stop at the Covid vaccine?
40K - 60K people die every year from the Flu.
Should that vaccine be mandated as well?
Or maybe, just maybe, if you want protection from a disease, you get the vaccine & leave everyone else alone!
Just sayin!
Def. of Liar - "A Person Who Tells Lies" / "I lied. Deal with it" - ams288
Page 3 of 8<123456>Last »