It doesn't matter

[vlyons]

It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter when life begins.
It doesn't matter if it's a fetus or another human being.
The entire argument is a distraction, a red herring, a subjective and unwinnable argument that could not matter less.
It doesn't matter whether we are talking about a fertilized egg, a fetus, or a baby, or a 5 year old, or a Nobel Prize winning pediatric oncologist.
NOBODY has the right to use your body against your will, even to save their life, or the life on another person.
That's it! That's the argument.
You cannot be forced to donate blood, or marrow, or organs, even though thousands die every year on waiting lists.
They cannot even harvest your organs after you die without your explicit, written pre-mortem permission.
Denying women the right to abortion means we would have less bodily autonomy than a corpse.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

1. If we take that as an absolute then

It would invalidate vaccine mandates and requirements.

So, ying-yang with two dots, and all that, there are very few absolutes, and this is not one of them.

Then we have to ask how and where to draw the line.

I think it becomes a question of public good and innocent victims.

A pregnancy is between a woman and a lover, partner, if there is one and potentially a doctor. The woman gets the veto. It is firstmost and foremost a private matter.

Pandemic contagious illness is a public matter. It could not be farther from a private matter. As a practical matter, the inconvenience and potential side effects (including possibly death) are miniscule in comparison to the side effects of the uncontrolled virus. Even when weighted by rates and severities.

Believing in outlandish theories, as a group, does not give group members the right to infect other people. That in particular means no right to evade the vaccines and carry on regardless.

Their (and our) right to our own bodies is limited because our bodies can invade other bodies (metaphorically) via replicated viruses.

There is an old saying "Your right to swing a fist ends where my nose begins." Failing to take common counter measures against spreading the virus (masks, vaccines) is like swinging a fist. And you can't put all the onus on the nose; the virus is always most effectively stopped inside and at the body replicating and expelling it.

[Oppaloopa]

2. Thank You

[Trueblue Texan]

3. the concept of vaccine mandates is misrepresented...

No one can force you to have a vaccine. However, if you want to enjoy certain privileges, such as working in a hospital that takes Medicare payments, or a private employer that wants to protect his/her employees. There are certain requirements for all privileges. The privileges are optional, therefore so is the mandate for vaccines.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. Basically, I think you are saying that rights include duties, which I certainly agree with.

In some places mandates and lockdowns do infringe (move over into) rights. Like vaccine passports for non-essential activities like bars and restaurants infringes on freedom of assembly (properly so in some circumstances) and commerce.

The right to incarcerate prisoners that the government has is counter balanced by the duty of care the government has in its control.

The rights of the citizens are counter-balanced by the duty to vote and to serve on juries.

... And ... this is a big and ... the duty to protect OTHER citizens when it can easily be done. Being in a wacky anti-science cult does not excuse a person, regardless of how much internet "research" makes you think the best scientific knowledge is wrong.

[Sogo]

4. Vaccine mandates would not be invalidated

precisely because of what you argue:

"Pandemic contagious illness is a public matter." Pregnancy is "first and foremost a private matter."

The concern is private v. public matters.

[Delmette2.0]

12. I agree, thank you.

[ShazzieB]

25. ☝☝☝This, absolutely!☝☝☝

[cayugafalls]

6. It can still be an abosolute. A Pandemic that threatens all people is different.

A virus makes a 'person' into a 'weaponized being' and therefore a mandate for getting the vaccine is not out of scope for protecting the public good.

I am purposely using terminology from warfare because fighting virus infections of the future will be a war.

[Trueblue Texan]

20. I agree with you, but...

...there has been no "mandate" without an alternative. The few mandates out there require you to have the vaccine if you plan on working, gathering, or being in certain places. You are free to reject the vaccine as long as your stay out of those places, which may mean losing your job, but you have a choice.

[cayugafalls]

22. Correct. At this point, the mandate is optional.

I am merely leaving open the potential scenario where a vaccine mandate could become a requirement in a world with weaponized viruses.

I am not saying I would like it. I am only suggesting that in order to protect the public good, in the future, should a virus become truly 'weaponized' then the mandate would not have any outs, it would be a requirement for moving about freely.

In such a scenario, vaccine passports would be a reality.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

35. "weaponized virus" is a fave mantra of RW antivaxers. So you'd think they'd first in line for the

They hate China.

They love the Defense Department.

They think China attacked the US with a weaponized virus.

Put those three together and you would expect them to be first in line to get vaxed, even with an "experimental quasi-vaccine" (as they view it) since it is the primary defense. Along with masking.

I'm sorry I missed the opportunity in the early days to push the idea that masking is the best defense against China (give RW nuts a way to save face and do the right thing). But they are nuts, self-centered nuts, so of course they shoot themselves in the foot by not masking or vaxing.

[cayugafalls]

37. Never heard it myself from a rw'er, but I don't know any so, yea, there ya go.

I can assure you my usage and theirs are not in alignment.

Peace.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. My mistake to not be more clear that I assumed yours & their usage were not the same. Peace too. nt

[leftstreet]

8. What if someone decided the birthrate was too high?

And a threat to the public good.

Loss of body autonomy would mean forced pregnancy terminations

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Nope. We don't have a monarchy or a dictatorship at this time. If we did, then all bets are off

So, no, "someone" does not decide.

And it would be a hard sell to persuade a majority of that being necessary. Or even a slim majority. Very hard sell. Not going to happen.

Global birthrate is flattening out.

Further, I have it on good authority that pregnancy is not contagious.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. The Qonned say the mRNA vaccines are a Gates-Soros-Fauci depopulation scheme

They oppose mandates on that basis and expect millions to die beginning in January and billions in the next two years.

“I can’t wrap my head around the concept that the vaccines are
designed to kill the supplicants.”
The virus was designed to kill. The vaccines are experimental and were
rushed into production. Unfortunately, the vaccines have “problems”,
to be generous about it. Whether the problems are planned or
incidental I have no idea.
13 posted on 2021-10-24, by SaxxonWoods (Halyna Hutchins
didn't kill herself!!! )


"But would they kill millions of their own supporters?"
They been doing this kind of thing to their own people for a long time.
It should be blatantly obvious to ANYONE by now that the “vaccines”
don’t work, and that far more people are being killed by it than from
the virus it was meant to protect us from.
What else do you call that besides biological warfare?
20 posted on 2021-10-24, by Safrguns


"...the plan to murder over 7 billion people..."
IMHO the entire COVID hoax was never a threat but rather an excuse to
inject 7 billion people with a death jab.
27 posted on 2021-10-24, by Qui is

[msfiddlestix]

34. ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️ ✔️

Perfectly stated.

[Lonestarblue]

7. In effect, forcing a woman to bear a child she does not want means the state controls her body.

We would all be horrified if the state said it had a right to use a human body for its purposes for nine months, just as we are horrified by the history of our government’s past experiments on black people. While pregnancy is not an experiment, its forcible continuation is forcing a woman to undergo a condition against her will. I am reminded of the doctor from the 1800s who is known as the father of gynecology, J. Marion Sims, who perfected his surgical techniques on enslaved women, most of whom received no anesthesia and were forced to bear the pain of experimental surgeries. Forcing women to endure something against their will is not equality under the law.

Many arguments have been made that abortion is the taking of a life no matter when it is done, and I can see some logic in that. However, a fetus is only a potential life because it cannot survive without its host, the woman. Thus you have competing issues, and in our Western tradition we typically place the health (and that should include mental health) and life of the woman above that of the fetus. What the anti-abortion groups want the state to do is place the potential life of a fetus above that of the existing life of the woman.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

29. They also put fetuses above the life a fetus becomes

if born.

[leftstreet]

9. DURec

[Sogo]

10. Yes.

Bodily autonomy says it all.

[DLevine]

11. K&R. nt

[cilla4progress]

14. Good discussion!

Where do toxic industries that lead to debility and death fall in here? Or is that ranging beyond appropriate limits to this discussion?

And what about gun "rights"?

I'm just seeking to find a unifying theory here that fits into this model - which I, too, subscribe to.

Wish I could recall which political philosopher I studied in college addressed just this topic...

[Trueblue Texan]

21. I tend to think about abortion in terms of when life begins, only....

...in my view, life is never-ending, continually renewing. Human life is on that continuum somewhere and I draw the line at the viability of life outside the womb. That is not to say that it may not be appropriate to to end a pregnancy before term, depending on the health of the mother. My daughter had pre-eclampsia and stayed in the hospital several weeks before the birth of her last child. As much as I love my (very healthy) grandson, I have no qualms about saying that had it been a choice between my daughter's life and my grandson's, who was unknown to me or anyone at the time, I would have chosen to save my daughter's life--had it been up to me. She is the one with relationships built throughout her lifetime, responsibilities, a husband, another child, a family who loves her. The loss of her life would have shattered many more lives than an unborn child would have. But the most important point I'm making is that it wasn't my decision or anyone's --it was hers and thank goodness she didn't have to make it.

Finally, the relationships that one has should be as important as a beating heart in determining which life is more precious. They are all precious, but some would be a greater loss to all.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

30. Absolutely agree!

And let's not forget that once a fetus is born, Rs no longer gaf about that human being.

[TeamProg]

15. A fetus is NOT a baby. Got that?

A fetus is NOT a baby. Got that?

Things you will NEVER hear:

Coming to our fetus shower?

What are you going to name the fetus?

"Hey there, fetus doll, let's go have a drink".

We're going shopping for a new fetus stroller.

Could you pick up some fetus powder while you're out?

Fetus elephants are the cutest!

He's just now losing his fetus teeth.

(singing) Fetus, Fetus, where did our love go? ooooOOOooo

(singing) OOoo Fetus I love your way.. wanna be with you night and day..

(singing) Fetus come back, any kind of fool could see

(The Nuge) Hey Fetus, tell me why you're hangin' 'round Ain't got time for kissin' I'm too busy messin' in this town.

(singing) I want my Fetus Back, Fetus Back, Fetus Back Ribs..

[usaf-vet]

16. Your opening statement is all that can or needs to be said. It doesn't matter any counter argument..

... just gets ignored. The GQP members are so brainwashed that nothing will change their warped views.

Another meme going around today also says it.

They complain about how uncomfortable it is to expect THEM to wear a mask for part of a day. Yet, at the same time, they argue that women should be able to carry a fetus to term and deliver it for adoption.

[ShazzieB]

26. I would just change one word...

They complain about how uncomfortable it is to expect THEM to wear a mask for part of a day. Yet, at the same time, they argue that women should be FORCED to carry a fetus to term and deliver it for adoption.

[Dan]

17. I guess we have to remember when they put people on trial

Jury Nulification.

[Silent3]

18. That analysis doesn't work completely for me

The vaccine requirement argument that someone else already posted covers part of my objection.

The other part is that, as is true of many Democratic voters, I'm comfortable with some third trimester limitations on abortion. I'm not a person who would demand those limitations, but I don't see someone else who wants those limitations as some kind of rabid, woman-suppressing fanatic either.

This is because the longer a pregnancy continues not only does a fetus more closely resemble a fully-born human being, but that there is a reasonable implicit consent to continue the pregnancy, and an implicit obligation to the fetus is created, because there has been sufficient time and opportunity for a woman to have realized she is pregnant and to have terminated the pregnancy sooner if she had wanted to.

By time the third trimester is reached many people would think (I'm personally ambivalent on this) that abortion should be limited to newly-discovered health threats to the mother, newly learned factors that could not have informed an earlier decision.

[Farmer-Rick]

27. The problem is the fundies don't care if the woman dies

They want their arbitrary laws with no exceptions. The more suffering the bigger the thrill they get from it. They see in only black and white.....unless it involves them.

Fetus Uber Alles is designed to remove a woman's bodily autonomy. If she may die giving birth, well let her, so be it. They don't care because they are blinded by their religious lies and indoctrination.

And in the US we really don't have vaccine mandates. We have jobs you can't have without vaccines, things you can't do without vaccines. People you can't be around without vaccines.

But no one will arrest you for not getting vaccinated or even if your kid dies from lack of vaccination. No one will prosecute your doctor for not giving you a vaccine. No one will arrest you for transporting unvaccinated people. No one can sue you for not getting vaccinated. Yet all those things will happen to women who try to get abortions if Roe is overturned. The 2 are not comparable.

[Silent3]

33. I absolutely know fundies don't care

My first point is that, totally apart from the severe punishments many anti-abortionists would love to inflict, we don't legally treat "my body, my choice" as a 100% absolute in the law, or else vaccine mandates would be impossible.

And my second point is that even many pro-choice Democrats are in favor of some third trimester restrictions, but of course no restrictions that threaten the health of the mother.

[LittleGirl]

32. Like in the case of my neighbor

Her very much wanted second child. At her 20 weeks ultrasound, they found the baby didn’t have a brain. Or skull. What to do? She was given a choice, abort or deliver full term. This was Indiana 12 years ago. She held the baby another month before she started having early contractions. They delivered the baby at 30 weeks and it breathed about 40 minutes before it died. What would happen if the baby died in utero? Wouldn’t it contaminate the body of the mother? Of course it would. That’s why abortion should be safe and legal forever.

The mother had a folic acid deficiency and her third child born under more serious medical care, is heathy and a thriving pre-teen.

[malaise]

23. Great post

Rec

[Nululu]

24. Religious evils codified into law to kill and maim women

[Farmer-Rick]

28. So true

A new Protestant Inquisition or witch burning.

[Roy Rolling]

31. Beyond that

Regardless of the scientific, religious, ethical reasons people spout there’s only one issue here:

Abortion is being talked about to get votes for Republicans

If it wasn’t something that benefits them, Republicans wouldn’t give a shit about fetuses, women, the Constitution, or morality.

Their whole life is about them only, everyone else is a tool to help them active those ends.