International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Upchurch 8th August 2022 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873138)
"my body my choice" contains no such qualifications.

But, as I said, it isn't the same. As with most things in life, context matters.

ponderingturtle 8th August 2022 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13873137)
It does, for the most part, because with vaccinations, it's not just your body, is it? Your decisions have an effect on your entire human being community's bodies, or more if the disease in question is virulent enough. The burden of taking a vaccine on you is quite small and the benefit is huge.

With abortion, at most, you're talking about a potential human being. The burden on the mother is quite large and prolonged with huge potential drawbacks.

It's not quite the same, is it?

Only if you care about others at all.

cosmicaug 8th August 2022 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873138)
"my body my choice" contains no such qualifications.

Even if we ignore the crucial public health element of this, vaccines are more often than not not about "my body, my choice". More often, they are about imposing a choice upon dependents that is against the current standard of care. Don't think, for instance, that school vaccination requirements imposes some sort of impact on personal liberty. They impose restrictions on the ability of parents to impose what amounts to medical malpractice on their children.

This makes most sense as a matter of personal choice only when one's children are considered the personal property of parents.

JoeMorgue 8th August 2022 12:03 PM

"I literally only care about rights as a concept when the right in question lets me hurt another human being and literally at no other point" isn't exactly an uncommon mentality, sadly.

thaiboxerken 8th August 2022 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13873069)
I think you might have been confused as to where you were posting.

Politics is a religion to Republicans, why else would they hold onto demonstrably false ideology?

thaiboxerken 8th August 2022 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13873137)
It does, for the most part, because with vaccinations, it's not just your body, is it? Your decisions have an effect on your entire human being community's bodies, or more if the disease in question is virulent enough. The burden of taking a vaccine on you is quite small and the benefit is huge.

With abortion, at most, you're talking about a potential human being. The burden on the mother is quite large and prolonged with huge potential drawbacks.

It's not quite the same, is it?

Well.. except if a mother is forced to give birth, and then abandons that baby to society, it affects the community. Anti-abortion increases the burden on society.

theprestige 8th August 2022 05:41 PM

The phrase begs the question there's only one body involved. Any skeptical proponent of the slogan should rightly be expected to explain when exactly a second body emerges and why. To my knowledge, none of them can.

Upchurch 8th August 2022 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873351)
Further discussion of why I think that is BS is off topic, so we can handle it in a different place or not at all.

Great! So, as I was saying, pregnancy and vaccination are a false equivalence.

Upchurch 8th August 2022 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13873446)
The phrase begs the question there's only one body involved. Any skeptical proponent of the slogan should rightly be expected to explain when exactly a second body emerges and why. To my knowledge, none of them can.

Iíve never heard anti-choice advocates explain why healthy people shouldnít be required to donate a kidney or blood.

cosmicaug 8th August 2022 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13873446)
The phrase begs the question there's only one body involved. Any skeptical proponent of the slogan should rightly be expected to explain when exactly a second body emerges and why. To my knowledge, none of them can.

Aren't we talking about choice here?

I ask because making the argument that there exists a second body (or that there exists multiple bodies) which should presumably be given the right to choose implies that this additional body (or bodies, in the case of multiple pregnancies) has a capacity to make a choice. While a blastocyst may or may not implant & while an embryo or fetus may or may not successfully complete a pregnancy, I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that any of these "actions" constitutes a choice. It's clear that a choice implies an awareness of different alternatives & the ability to volitionally bring one or another alternative about.

If none of this is the case, we have no actors to choose actions and how many bodies exist is just a red herring.

Now if we are talking about something other than choice, then we are having a different conversation.

cosmicaug 8th August 2022 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13873470)
Aren't we talking about choice here?

I ask because making the argument that there exists a second body (or that there exists multiple bodies) which should presumably be given the right to choose implies that this additional body (or bodies, in the case of multiple pregnancies) has a capacity to make a choice. While a blastocyst may or may not implant & while an embryo or fetus may or may not successfully complete a pregnancy, I think it's pretty disingenuous to suggest that any of these "actions" constitutes a choice. It's clear that a choice implies an awareness of different alternatives & the ability to volitionally bring one or another alternative about.

If none of this is the case, we have no actors to choose actions and how many bodies exist is just a red herring.

Now if we are talking about something other than choice, then we are having a different conversation.

And I realize that you could be talking about a different thing and offering different arguments; but here you think that you are being so clever by asking "what about its choice?" and you are not. There exists no component of choice here.

d4m10n 8th August 2022 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13873456)
So, as I was saying, pregnancy and vaccination are a false equivalence.

No one is saying they are equivalent, but the principle of respect for bodily autonomy presumably applies in both cases.

BobTheCoward 8th August 2022 06:13 PM

There is an argument I see where the fetus is. person, but doesn't have a right to use the woman. But that always struck me as like estoppel.

Upchurch 8th August 2022 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d4m10n (Post 13873476)
No one is saying they are equivalent, but the principle of respect for bodily autonomy presumably applies in both cases.

But not equally.

cosmicaug 8th August 2022 06:16 PM

From https://jessica.substack.com/p/abortion-every-day-8822#details'


Quote:

This is distressing: A Nebraska woman is facing felony charges for helping her teenage daughter obtain an abortion earlier this year. Her daughter, who was 17 years-old at the time and 22 weeks pregnant (abortion is illegal in the state after 20 weeks), is also being charged. She will be tried as an adult. Iím looking to get more details on the case, but a couple of noteworthy items: Law enforcement not only went through the girlís medical records, but got a warrant for her Facebook messages. Thatís where the mother and daughter allegedly talked about how to properly take abortion medicationóthe prosecutor is also using a message where the teen expressed not wanting to be pregnant as evidence.

BobTheCoward 8th August 2022 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13873482)
But not equally.

Because both parties are filled with people with no respect for bodily autonomy.

There is a solution to the vaccine problem...prosecute those who actually spread the disease, regardless of vaccination status. It is only lack of respect for my body,.my choice.

acbytesla 8th August 2022 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873478)
There is an argument I see where the fetus is. person, but doesn't have a right to use the woman. But that always struck me as like estoppel.

Why? A father is not required to give his son his blood, kidney his liver etc. Why should a woman be forced to do essentially the same thing?

BobTheCoward 8th August 2022 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13873525)
Why? A father is not required to give his son his blood, kidney his liver etc. Why should a woman be forced to do essentially the same thing?

Because the woman has taken previous actions that the fetus has come to rely on. Even though she has that right, it is constrained by her previous actions.

acbytesla 8th August 2022 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873529)
Because the woman has taken previous actions that the fetus has come to rely on. Even though she has that right, it is constrained by her previous actions.

You mean having sex? Having sex is not agreeing to a pregnancy. What if she was raped? What if she took every protection? It also isnít granting a fetus the right to be carried to term or be delivered.

If men were the ones who carried and delivered the fetus, do you think for one second they wouldn't have full bodily autonomy?

BobTheCoward 8th August 2022 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13873534)
You mean having sex? Having sex is not agreeing to a pregnancy. What if she was raped? What if she took every protection? It also isnít granting a fetus the right to be carried to term or be delivered.

If men were the ones who carried and delivered the fetus, do you think for one second they wouldn't have full bodily autonomy?

No, that isn't what I mean.

Providing food, oxygen, shelter, etc.
The classic example in estoppel is always that of a landlord performing in a certain way that the tenet comes to rely on the actions of the landlord, limiting the landlord's rights. Pregnant women are super-landlords.

ETA: also super weird that you have such a strong feeling on the estoppel argument when it depends on the fetus being a person which neither of us believes.

acbytesla 8th August 2022 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873539)
No, that isn't what I mean.

Providing food, oxygen, shelter, etc.
The classic example in estoppel is always that of a landlord performing in a certain way that the tenet comes to rely on the actions of the landlord, limiting the landlord's rights. Pregnant women are super-landlords.

ETA: also super weird that you have such a strong feeling on the estoppel argument when it depends on the fetus being a person which neither of us believes.

That's a stretch. I don't buy the estoppel argument for forcing a woman to carry and deliver a fetus. You're granting a fetus a right that no other person has.

BobTheCoward 8th August 2022 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13873549)
That's a stretch. I don't buy the estoppel argument for forcing a woman to carry and deliver a fetus. You're granting a fetus a right that no other person has.

Estoppel isn't a right. Estoppel is also specific to someone's circumstances.

The whole point of estoppel is the court forcing someone to do something they do not want to do

acbytesla 8th August 2022 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873551)
Estoppel isn't a right. Estoppel is also specific to someone's circumstances.

The whole point of estoppel is the court forcing someone to do something they do not want to do

Doesn't make it any less crap of an argument.

Upchurch 9th August 2022 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873551)
The whole point of estoppel is the court forcing someone to do something they do not want to do

Again, having sex is not an agreement to pregnancy. A human embryo is not a human being. The landlord analogy very quickly falls apart when the landlord does not realize they have tenants in the first place, and that tenant isnít a human being.

A mother does not ďtake actionsĒ during gestation. They are involuntary, naturally occurring processes.

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13873760)
Again, having sex is not an agreement to pregnancy. A human embryo is not a human being. The landlord analogy very quickly falls apart when the landlord does not realize they have tenants in the first place, and that tenant isn’t a human being.

A mother does not “take actions” during gestation. They are involuntary, naturally occurring processes.

a) I never mentioned sex.

b) I said this only applies if the fetus is a person and I also said I don't think the fetus is a person

c) I'm pretty sure a fetus is a human being....depending on what definition you use I guess

d) Those are actions the mother is taking. It isn't given that the actions can't be involuntary. Also, every action we take is an involuntary, naturally occurring process.

Upchurch 9th August 2022 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873765)
a) I never mentioned sex.

You mentioned action. There is only one action that precedes pregnancy (baring medical assistance).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873765)
b) I said this only applies if the fetus is a person and I also said I don't think the fetus is a person

c) I'm pretty sure a fetus is a human being....depending on what definition you use I guess

A fetus is human (adj.), it is not a human being (n.). Human being and (human) person is synonymous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873765)
d) Those are actions the mother is taking. It isn't given that the actions can't be involuntary. Also, every action we take is an involuntary, naturally occurring process.

Only if you deny free will, in which case there is no moral culpability nor just punishment. Abortion, itself, would be an involuntary, naturally occurring process. Is that the position you want to take?

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13873769)


Only if you deny free will, in which case there is no moral culpability nor just punishment. Abortion, itself, would be an involuntary, naturally occurring process. Is that the position you want to take?

Yes, because I'm pro choice

Upchurch 9th August 2022 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873771)
Yes, because I'm pro choice

You deny free will, but believe in choice.

Thatís not even a question, so much as a reminder of who Iím talking to.

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13873772)
You deny free will, but believe in choice.

Thatís not even a question, so much as a reminder of who Iím talking to.

Pro choice is a label to describe policies....just as pro life doesn't say anything other than an abortion position.


I would bet most people here deny that traditional view of free will

gnome 9th August 2022 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873515)
Because both parties are filled with people with no respect for bodily autonomy.

There is a solution to the vaccine problem...prosecute those who actually spread the disease, regardless of vaccination status. It is only lack of respect for my body,.my choice.

I pick up the disease at a public event because many people there weren't vaccinated. Who do I ask to be prosecuted?

To me that says, "Go ahead and allow people to shoot into the air haphazardly, and prosecute anyone who hits somebody."

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13873840)
I pick up the disease at a public event because many people there weren't vaccinated. Who do I ask to be prosecuted?

To me that says, "Go ahead and allow people to shoot into the air haphazardly, and prosecute anyone who hits somebody."

The person who actually emitted the disease cells that infected you.

acbytesla 9th August 2022 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnome (Post 13873840)
I pick up the disease at a public event because many people there weren't vaccinated. Who do I ask to be prosecuted?

To me that says, "Go ahead and allow people to shoot into the air haphazardly, and prosecute anyone who hits somebody."

As if you know for sure where and when you picked up a disease. COVID, Influenza, Smallpox etc, are not STDs. You may have picked up a virus from someone who was asymptomatic.

Bob's argument is ridiculous.

JoeMorgue 9th August 2022 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13873881)
Bob's argument is ridiculous.

We should get that embroidered on the pillows.

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13873881)
As if you know for sure where and when you picked up a disease. COVID, Influenza, Smallpox etc, are not STDs. You may have picked up a virus from someone who was asymptomatic.

Bob's argument is ridiculous.

Just because something is hard to prosecute the person that hurt you is not grounds to criminalize those who did not hurt you

Upchurch 9th August 2022 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13873881)
Bob's argument is ridiculous.

Whatever gave you that idea?
Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873773)
It is an injustice that punishment is unevenly applied to those who produce evidence of a crime. justice is supposed to be blind.


I get a real kenm vibe from ol' Bob.

acbytesla 9th August 2022 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873906)
Just because something is hard to prosecute the person that hurt you is not grounds to criminalize those who did not hurt you

Society has a right to protect individuals from viruses if it can. And that includes criminalizing behavior that leads to the spread of an infectious disease.

BobTheCoward 9th August 2022 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13873987)
Society has a right to protect individuals from viruses if it can. And that includes criminalizing behavior that leads to the spread of an infectious disease.

Strongly disagree. And just like abortions, I don't think any argument like that justifies making abortion illegal.

Suddenly 9th August 2022 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13873987)
Society has a right to protect individuals from viruses if it can. And that includes criminalizing behavior that leads to the spread of an infectious disease.

Lets face it: The germ theory of disease was at most newfangled cutting edge at the time the US constitution was ratified, so if we want laws that have anything to do with that we need a constitutional amendment.

This is, of course, insane. But, you know, originalism does like to ignore advances in human understanding so why not.

acbytesla 9th August 2022 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873991)
Strongly disagree. And just like abortions, I don't think any argument like that justifies making abortion illegal.

Stupid is as stupid does.

gnome 9th August 2022 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 13873906)
Just because something is hard to prosecute the person that hurt you is not grounds to criminalize those who did not hurt you

"Just because it's hard to prosecute the person that fired the bullet that hurt you, is not grounds to criminalize shooting in the air for people that did not hurt you."

Do you agree with that statement?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.