The Abortion and Vaccination Thread

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

For the record, Ragnar Danneskjöld is the only character from Atlas Shrugged that I have any respect for, and I could probably be counted on to get behind you on that one.

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

The secret in the sauce is authoritarianism. The divergence is perceived self interest.

I agree with you in the principle of the organ donation. Signed my DL at 16. But there's a part of me that is just super cynical about the possibility of 'invisible' corrupt harvesting in lower income hospitals. Maybe default would increase supply enough it wouldn't happen, but, Im just not sure.

Seriously though Washington, measles? Vaccinate your damn kids. We get massive outbreaks and it will become nonconsentual to have it done.

 

[metalhead]

Is a vaccination a violation of someone's bodily autonomy? It's not clear to me that it is, nowhere near on the level of forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term, or taking their organs. Additionally if you don't get vaccinated you may be violating the bodily autonomy of others by giving them diseases that should have been eradicated.

It is absolutely a matter of bodily autonomy whether or not a person gets things injected into them. How could it not be?

I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to get vaccinated, but I am certainly in favor of making vaccination a condition for accessing things like public education.

Well this takes away bodily autonomy then, by taking away someone's fundamental right to a publicly funded education by professional educators if they do not inject themselves with something. Making a fundamental right contingent upon performing some act is a form of compelling the act.

 

[Lexicus]

Well this takes away bodily autonomy then, by taking away someone's fundamental right to a publicly funded education by professional educators if they do not inject themselves with something. Making a fundamental right contingent upon performing some act is a form of compelling the act.

Except the other children have the right not to be exposed to the dangerous consequences of "someone's" stupidity.

 

[El_Machinae]

And then you're in the arena where you're violating bodily integrity for something someone might do. Keep in mind, you also have the ability to bring consequences to bear, like we do for manslaughter. It's illegal to speed. Much more punishment if you kill someone while speeding.
If you bring measles into a school, the justice system can punish.

It's faster and easier to vaccinate. But then it's expedience that you're arguing from, not first principles.

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 problem is one of history, because of how the abortion right was created. It cannot be conceded without losing the entire battle, and then there would need to be new legislation in order to create the right again. Apparently, the United States is incapable of writing that (better) legislation, politically. And so, the battle has to be fought based on the way the right was created. It's a kluge.

 

[Farm Boy]

Fighting it over rare situations where death is sought over already present viability? That's not the right word.

 

[El_Machinae]

Fighting it over rare situations where death is sought over already present viability? That's not the right word.

Yeah, that's the sucky part. Like, how do you dismantle the current set of rights, but rebuild them such that only the exampled exemption is created? It's a political hot potato, because as much as the stated example is a great example, no one believes that it's actually presented as the compromise.

My pro-life feed will always have stories of abortion survivors, and I am very grateful that people are willing to fight that fight. But of the people forwarding those stories, what ratio of them aren't secretly trying to push much deeper into preventing abortion?

I don't have good answers, other than knowing that I know better than everyone else and should just be listened to. But I don't have a political solution to the current distress.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Except the other children have the right not to be exposed to the dangerous consequences of "someone's" stupidity.

So their miniscule risk has to be weighed as more important than the miniscule risks that do come with vaccinations? Why? Why do their parents' rights matter more than the rights of the parents who choose not to put their child at risk "for the greater good"?

Going back to your previous presentation of the essay by the father of a child lost to the incredibly rare complications of measles...do you recognize that your argument there is in the exact same form that Trump uses when he trots out his "angel moms" in support of his wall? Yes, the man lost his child. Yes, that's really really sad. No, that doesn't make the measurable risks somehow much greater than they are.

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

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.

Sorry to quote this again but I was thinking more about this and I'm wondering about the possible relevance of the bodily autonomy of the fetus. Like, if the fetus was of person status, or some sufficiently high value, don't we have to respect the bodily autonomy of this fetus? In that case it seems to me that the mother would have the right to remove this fetus from her body, if she desired to, but if it could be done without violating the autonomy of the fetus, if that fetus was viable, then she shouldn't have any say over whether or not it has the right to keep living. Do you agree with that or have a different point of view?

 

[Lexicus]

So their miniscule risk has to be weighed as more important than the miniscule risks that do come with vaccinations?

One "minuscule risk" is orders of magnitude larger than the other. So yes, it is orders of magnitude "more important".

do you recognize that your argument there is in the exact same form that Trump uses when he trots out his "angel moms" in support of his wall?

No, it isn't, actually. Trump's logic in that case relies on a false separation between "illegals" and other humans.

Sorry to quote this again but I was thinking more about this and I'm wondering about the possible relevance of the bodily autonomy of the fetus. Like, if the fetus was of person status, or some sufficiently high value, don't we have to respect the bodily autonomy of this fetus? In that case it seems to me that the mother would have the right to remove this fetus from her body, if she desired to, but if it could be done without violating the autonomy of the fetus, if that fetus was viable, then she shouldn't have any say over whether or not it has the right to keep living. Do you agree with that or have a different point of view?

No, I believe it is always wrong to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term under all circumstances. That's my point of view.

 

[El_Machinae]

How would you force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Tie her down in a bed?

Most of the legislative efforts involve denying access to Medical expertise, or in using punishment after the fact.

We have to be careful about the language, because sloppy language is what leads to strawman positions. The bodily autonomy argument resonates much more when we envision a woman being strapped to a table.

It's why metals point about bodily autonomy and access to public education was a good Counterpoint. You have the right to public education, but if your access to public education threatens other people, then it becomes tougher to discuss

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Forcing a woman to listen to a heartbeat ultrasound to proceed with an abortion is awful close to strapping someone to a table in substance.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

One "minuscule risk" is orders of magnitude larger than the other. So yes, it is orders of magnitude "more important".

When someone says "you should ignore that one in a billion risk because this one in a million risk to me is really important" I almost always think that their assignment of values relies more on who is at risk than it relies on the actual numbers. Do you think I'm wrong?

 

[Lexicus]

Yes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yes.

Fair enough. You are more optimistic than me. I figure people are generally self centered and that overrides a few orders of magnitude in numbers that are basically negligible either way.

 

[El_Machinae]

Forcing a woman to listen to a heartbeat ultrasound to proceed with an abortion is awful close to strapping someone to a table in substance.

I agree in spirit. But it's not 'forcing', it's denial of a service until a pre-condition is met. It's remarkably more like "you cannot come to school without being vaccinated first" than not. I'm merely pointing out that the idea that both deny agency is reasonable. They both harm bodily autonomy. Not through direct force, but by denying access to common services.

edit: ehn, I'll save it for an abortion thread. This thread has another purpose.

 

[Takhisis]

You are more optimistic than me.

Sort of. He does want people to stop having children, I've just remembered. (I'm not sure how it fits into the above, but I thought it worth mentioning)

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

No, I believe it is always wrong to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term under all circumstances. That's my point of view.

Ok, I understand you believe that. I'm asking why it wouldn't matter if the fetus was a person or had some kind of bodily autonomy, since an abortion would be a violation of it. If there was a solution that preserved the bodily autonomy of both the mother and the fetus, even if you think the mother is of far greater value, wouldn't that be preferable?

 

[Berzerker]

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

Not being allowed to have (or perform) an abortion without abiding by anti-abortion legislation doesn't constitute a violation of bodily autonomy

Seems kinda arbitrary

Except the other children have the right not to be exposed to the dangerous consequences of "someone's" stupidity.

Their folks can get them immunized.

 

[Estebonrober]

Sorry to quote this again but I was thinking more about this and I'm wondering about the possible relevance of the bodily autonomy of the fetus. Like, if the fetus was of person status, or some sufficiently high value, don't we have to respect the bodily autonomy of this fetus? In that case it seems to me that the mother would have the right to remove this fetus from her body, if she desired to, but if it could be done without violating the autonomy of the fetus, if that fetus was viable, then she shouldn't have any say over whether or not it has the right to keep living. Do you agree with that or have a different point of view?

You seem new to this debate!

Lots of people disagree with Lexicus on this moral point and use it as a line in the sand.