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

Only if you care about others at all.

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.

"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.

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

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.

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.

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

I’ve never heard anti-choice advocates explain why healthy people shouldn’t be required to donate a kidney or blood.

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.

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

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.

But not equally.

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

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.

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.

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 isn’t 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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

You deny free will, but believe in choice.

That’s not even a question, so much as a reminder of who I’m 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

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.

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.

We should get that embroidered on the pillows.

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

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.

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.

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.

Stupid is as stupid does.

"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?