The Abortion and Vaccination Thread

[rah]

What you think is not important. It isn't your decision.

How is my opinion worth any less than yours?

My wife always tells me that no man should have any input on this at all, until I remind her that it's a bad precedence to set.

 

[Lexicus]

How is my opinion worth any less than yours?

You're missing the point. My opinion isn't worth any more than yours, but I'm not the one trying to impose my opinions on other people through the law.

 

[Berzerker]

if you believe in bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion why not other less important matters like refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

 

[rah]

Actually I think you are.

You're missing the point. My opinion isn't worth any more than yours, but I'm not the one trying to impose my opinions on other people through the law.

I'm not either. This is a forum that has no impact on almost anything yet we discuss thing and provide our personal beliefs for entertainment and enlightenment on quite a few topics.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem with the current battle over late term abortions is that while @Lexicus is correct, the main source of demand for late term abortions is in fact the delays and nonsense that kept them from happening earlier, those delays and nonsense don't really happen very much in the states where the late term abortion laws are being laid out and driving the evangelicals into a fury. In NY and Virginia there is relatively speaking a very minimal need for such laws, because there isn't the delays and nonsense that there is in states that are not contemplating such late term laws, and those states are not going to contemplate such laws; they are more into increasing the delays and nonsense.

Which brings us back to the question of whether it was wise to pick this fight at this time, questions of whether it is "the right thing" aside.

 

[rah]

Bad visuals in my opinion, (which don't count of course).

 

[sophie]

That is irrelevant, actually. We both agree that you have moral value, and yet if you were to undergo kidney failure you could not legally compel me to donate a kidney to you. You could not legally compel me to donate blood to you, or any other organs, even if you need them to live. That's because the principle of bodily autonomy is considered even more fundamental than your right to life in those cases. And similarly to how you cannot take my organs even if you need them to live, you cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Whatever moral value we assign the fetus is irrelevant to this argument because it cannot, and does not, trump the bodily autonomy of the woman.

Bodily autonomy is so sacrosanct in this country, in fact, that you can't remove organs, even from corpses unless the person previously inhabiting that body gave explicit permission to do so before dying. Bodily autonomy of dead people trumps the well-being of the living in all cases.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

The assumption is that people who pass and enforce laws criminalizing abortion do not care about the welfare of fetuses. That is obvious from the fact that they almost all vote for the Republican Party. Anyone who votes for the Republican Party wants children (and adults) to die pretty much by definition, so to claim that they care about the welfare of fetuses is laughable.

I think until recently there was general support from the democratic party against 3rd trimester abortions for non-medical necessities, or am I off base there? Anyway, there are countless reasons someone would vote republican that range from ignorance to this very issue of abortion. I find these claims here to be... just not based in reality and lacking basic empathy for those dirty "others".

That is irrelevant, actually. We both agree that you have moral value, and yet if you were to undergo kidney failure you could not legally compel me to donate a kidney to you. You could not legally compel me to donate blood to you, or any other organs, even if you need them to live. That's because the principle of bodily autonomy is considered even more fundamental than your right to life in those cases. And similarly to how you cannot take my organs even if you need them to live, you cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Whatever moral value we assign the fetus is irrelevant to this argument because it cannot, and does not, trump the bodily autonomy of the woman.

Neither I nor you were talking about the legality of abortions, you explicitly made a moral argument against abortion. In any case, this argument you present here is a much stronger argument in favor of abortion, and I actually find quite compelling, in many ways.

This does remind me of Peter Singer's arguments about how we are all essentially watching children drown right next to us and not doing anything about it. He takes the position that we are all kind of moral monsters for not doing more. Our obsession with bodily autonomy could be more of a moral failure than some kind of deep truth. Like I've said, I'm conflicted about this. To me that person walking by a child drowning loses their bodily autonomy right there. Morally, they can't just keep walking because "it's their life and their body", the must try to save the child if able. The risks matter here a lot, if the situation was sufficiently risky I wouldn't hold him morally responsibly anymore. In the kidney donation case, my intuitions goes the other way. I don't fault someone for not doing it, but I think it would be good if they did.

Arguing by analogy has lots of problem, both these analogies break down. There are so many important differences when considering a 3rd trimester pregnancy...

 

[Lexicus]

I find these claims here to be... just not based in reality and lacking basic empathy for those dirty "others".

*shakes your hand* Hi, I'm Lexicus, and I really hate the Republicans.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

*shakes your hand* Hi, I'm Lexicus, and I really hate the Republicans.

Well, that is honest, can't fault you for that. That gives you an edge on the republicans right away, they often don't like to admit their hatred for the groups they hate.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, the issue certainly is nowhere near that simple, but changes to abortion law are changes to access, not root. Rates can indicate access. It was more a wondering than an argument, though I can sort of guesstimate where it's going to go.

I found it to be a valuable question. Truly.

 

[Estebonrober]

I think until recently there was general support from the democratic party against 3rd trimester abortions for non-medical necessities, or am I off base there? ..

They still are as a whole against this as policy which is my point about why this is so stupid. It does nothing for the dems and only exacerbates the center right and left thy might have a chance in getting to vote for them in 2020. It’s stupid politically.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Hey, they've gotta find all the worst possible issues to run on in 2020. After all, how else do they expect to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

 

[Traitorfish]

if you believe in bodily autonomy when it comes to abortion why not other less important matters like refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

Not being allowed to operate a bakery without abiding by anti-discrimination legislation doesn't constitute a violation of bodily autonomy

This does remind me of Peter Singer's arguments about how we are all essentially watching children drown right next to us and not doing anything about it. He takes the position that we are all kind of moral monsters for not doing more. Our obsession with bodily autonomy could be more of a moral failure than some kind of deep truth. Like I've said, I'm conflicted about this. To me that person walking by a child drowning loses their bodily autonomy right there. Morally, they can't just keep walking because "it's their life and their body", the must try to save the child if able. The risks matter here a lot, if the situation was sufficiently risky I wouldn't hold him morally responsibly anymore. In the kidney donation case, my intuitions goes the other way. I don't fault someone for not doing it, but I think it would be good if they did.

I don't think that you're really using "bodily autonomy" in quite right the sense, here. You can make a case that the witness to a drowning child incurs a duty to act to save the child. But it doesn't follow that another witness is now entitled to push him into the water. "Bodily autonomy", here, doesn't act as a defence against the fulfillment of duty, but as a defence of the physical integrity of the individual against outside forces. The question for abortion, then, would be whether the mother has a duty to bring a foetus to term, and whether the rest of us have a right to for her to do so- to push her into the water, so to speak.

 

[Estebonrober]

The question for abortion, then, would be whether the mother has a duty to bring a foetus to term, and whether the rest of us have a right to for her to do so- to push her into the water, so to speak.

This is where I split the hair. I think she does have a personal moral responsibility, but I won't push her in the water.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is where I split the hair. I think she does have a personal moral responsibility, but I won't push her in the water.

Generally speaking I agree with this. We aren't living in caves and marveling at fire, we've known for quite some time how pregnancy happens so I'm not overly sympathetic about unintended pregnancies from a moral perspective, but also won't push her in the water. I am TOTALLY unsympathetic towards people who try to prevent access to birth control and education regarding birth control, and think the best use of abortion would be them, retroactively.

 

[metalhead]

That is irrelevant, actually. We both agree that you have moral value, and yet if you were to undergo kidney failure you could not legally compel me to donate a kidney to you. You could not legally compel me to donate blood to you, or any other organs, even if you need them to live. That's because the principle of bodily autonomy is considered even more fundamental than your right to life in those cases. And similarly to how you cannot take my organs even if you need them to live, you cannot force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Whatever moral value we assign the fetus is irrelevant to this argument because it cannot, and does not, trump the bodily autonomy of the woman.

Does this logic extend to people getting vaccinated?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Does this logic extend to people getting vaccinated?

The logic clearly does, but in most cases the sentiment doesn't. I think it is hilarious that people who are the most unwilling to accept infringement on a woman's bodily autonomy are usually first in line to demand that anti-vaxxers be forced to 'get with the program.'

I have to say though that someone made a really good point earlier...I don't want to go find the post, but...

I'm all for "I have bodily autonomy, and no you can't have my freakin' spare kidney even if it will save your life." But 'voluntary organ donation' as opposed to AUTOMATIC organ donation is probably just flat wrong. The bodily autonomy of dead people shouldn't be more valued than the needs of live people.

 

[Ajidica]

Probably because it's unequivocally the right thing to do. "Late-term abortions" that are not necessary for actual medical reasons (which account for the vast majority of them in the first place) are almost always the result of Republican state governments making abortion virtually impossible for people to actually access. So by the time they line up all the ducks in a row it's the third trimester.

Then Democrats should focus their efforts on widely available and accessible early abortions as opposed to getting into lose-lose fights over late-term abortions that are not already covered by laws permitting it in cases of severe fetal deformity or life of mother situations. Fight on your strongest footing, not your weakest.

The moral argument for women to be allowed to have abortions at any time for any reasons is that they aren't baby factories. They have the right to control their reproduction and by extension their own lives, period. Whether it makes people "uncomfortable" or not. A lot of things other people do make me feel "uncomfortable", like people listening to Post Malone, but it's a free country and they're allowed to do what they want with their lives.

I strongly disagree with this. If a woman is nine-months along, is healthy, no severe fetal issue is present, and chooses to have an abortion many people would consider that effectively murder, and a lot more would have severe moral issues with that.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

I don't think that you're really using "bodily autonomy" in quite right the sense, here. You can make a case that the witness to a drowning child incurs a duty to act to save the child. But it doesn't follow that another witness is now entitled to push him into the water. "Bodily autonomy", here, doesn't act as a defence against the fulfillment of duty, but as a defence of the physical integrity of the individual against outside forces. The question for abortion, then, would be whether the mother has a duty to bring a foetus to term, and whether the rest of us have a right to for her to do so- to push her into the water, so to speak.

Well, that's really the point. An individual can have certain duties, without giving others the right to compel them by coercive means to fulfill that duty.

Yeah I take your point. But I think our intuitions might kind of be tapping into other things with the drowning child analogy. Like, if you are physically there and able to push someone in the water, you should definitely just go save the child. The kind of person who is instead focused on pushing the bystanders in the water is... well not someone of high moral character. Additionally, I think there is a distinction between someone deciding to take justice into their own hands and collectively as a society deciding and passing laws that we require people to do so. Like, most people who support higher tax rates for the wealthy would agree that it would be wrong for me to hack into their bank accounts and take their money.