4 ms·

Abortion is not in any way comparable with this issue. Do not try and force some 'common ground' argument where is isn't one.

cato_the_elder 5y ago
I kinda agree, though probably from a different prospective than you. In the case of abortion, the right of the fetus to its life should be balanced with the bodily autonomy of the mother. You can make a much stronger argument against mandatory Covid vaccination, since it is mostly about an adult making decisions about their own health.
COGlory 5y ago
Agreed. The anti-abortion argument claims that bodily autonomy should be violated because not doing so supposedly results in the direct death of a defenseless child. The pro-vax mandate argument claims that bodily autonomy should be violated because it supposedly prevents a 0.05% chance of death of an innocent person. (usually adult)
- cato_the_elder 5y ago
  :-) I just noticed that we posted almost the same thing, at almost the same time.
sul_tasto 5y ago
It seems to me both pro-choice advocates and Canadian truckers are saying, “Get your laws off my body.” The idea that a person belongs to herself or himself is fundamental to both arguments.
- bearjaws 5y ago
  Someones choice to get an abortion doesn't give someone a potentially fatal disease. Someones choice to not get vaccinated HAS led to significant deaths at this point. Via overloaded health systems, spreading the disease and of course, the much higher likelihood of death for those who are unvaccinated. Drawing a parallel to abortion is absurd.
  - sul_tasto 5y ago
    I think pro-life supporters would argue that abortion leads to the death of the unborn child, who they believe has a right to be born. Is a woman required to carry an unwanted child to term because the fetus has rights? Is a Canadian trucker required to receive an unwanted vaccine to protect the old and vulnerable? Personally, I see a lot of similarities in the ambiguity of where the boundary exists between the rights and responsibilities between two parties relative to each other.
- nkrisc 5y ago
  The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. There's very good arguments for mandating vaccines against infectious diseases. I think debating mandated vaccinations with regards to the realistic likelihood of eradicating a disease is a debate that can be had, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The common good must be weighed against individual liberty. Even here in America, the land of the free, we do it all the time. There are countless things I can not do because it would not be in the best interest of society as a whole. In all Western societies, and many others as well, individual liberties are commonly curtailed for the common good. I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    Fundamental rights are legal absolutes that can only be negated by other rights or the a threat to the existence of the state itself that is supposed to defend these rights (e.g. war). The problem is, there are no rights to be healthy and not to catch a respiratory disease and the virus doesn't threaten the existence of the state with a 0.05% mortality rate in old and sick people. > I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others. I'm not sure to decide if you're a troll or not.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. What about sodomy? Receptive anal intercourse is an order of magnitude more likely to spread HIV/AIDS[1] than vaginal intercourse. Maybe what happens in the bedroom should be "curtailed for the common good"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission
    - abstract_put 5y ago
      I think what the parent comment is suggesting is pregnancy (and sodomy) overwhelmingly impact the people directly involved with it. It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party. I think it's a bit like second hand smoke vs. first hand smoke. I think it's entirely reasonable to object to second hand smoke (refusing vaccinations while insisting on participating in society) in all forms while supporting an individual's right to first hand smoke (pregnancy/sodomy).
- irjustin 5y ago
  The differences very much matter. You being pregnant does not increase the risk of my pregnancy.
- KennyBlanken 5y ago
  Oh, they very much don't want laws on their own body, but they very much want their laws on everyone else's, if you ask them how they feel about: * government control over media (especially which is non-christian, relating to LGTBQ subjects/characters, covering the history of racial discrimination, etc) * freedom to humanely end one's own life out of a conscious, informed decision to do so * the right to wear as little or as much clothing as you want, including covering your head entirely * a woman having easy, unrestricted access to contraceptives and abortion * immigration policies (the right to travel freely in search of a better life) * the death penalty * how freely you should be able to end another person's life (ie very loose carry and self defense laws) * easy, accommodating access to voting
- swader999 5y ago
  Yes, and where there's risk, there needs to be informed consent. Manipulation of trial data, collusion to censor, deplatforming and controlled media clearly limit informed consent.
rayiner 5y ago
Abortion is far more serious. Abortion always directly ends a human life. Not getting vaccinated creates at most an indirect increase in the probability of other people getting sick and dying—probably a minuscule fraction of one life. Many decisions we make every day have similar statistical effects—taking an international flight which kills people through pollution, or buying products the production of which creates heavy metal poisoning in third world countries. What is the incremental increase in covid deaths attributable to one person choosing not to get vaccinated, accounting for the fact that vaccination decreases but doesn’t eliminate the chances of passing on covid? What’s that compared to the incremental deaths caused by other activities?
- tptacek 5y ago
  Doesn't that analysis depend a whole lot on a very complicated metaphysical question of when a "human life" begins? The moment of conception? That's a fringe belief and the only answer to the question that makes your argument cohere perfectly.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    I think it’s a purely scientific question with a simple answer. After conception, the organism is plainly alive. Like if we found it on Mars we would say we found life on Mars. It’s also human according to its genetics—which is generally how we decide what species something happens to be. I don’t know why you’d call that a “fringe belief.” Fully 38% of the public holds that view: https://www.wbur.org/npr/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions https://www.wbur.org/npr/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-kee.... I suspect when most people assert that “life doesn’t begin at conception” they’re not referring to the literal beginning of human life, but the metaphysical question of when “human life that justifies legal protection” begins. That I agree is complex.
    - akvadrako 5y ago
      Science cannot provide definitions, like of what consititutes life.

cato_the_elder 5y ago

I kinda agree, though probably from a different prospective than you. In the case of abortion, the right of the fetus to its life should be balanced with the bodily autonomy of the mother. You can make a much stronger argument against mandatory Covid vaccination, since it is mostly about an adult making decisions about their own health.

COGlory 5y ago

Agreed. The anti-abortion argument claims that bodily autonomy should be violated because not doing so supposedly results in the direct death of a defenseless child. The pro-vax mandate argument claims that bodily autonomy should be violated because it supposedly prevents a 0.05% chance of death of an innocent person. (usually adult)

cato_the_elder 5y ago
:-) I just noticed that we posted almost the same thing, at almost the same time.

sul_tasto 5y ago

It seems to me both pro-choice advocates and Canadian truckers are saying, “Get your laws off my body.” The idea that a person belongs to herself or himself is fundamental to both arguments.

bearjaws 5y ago
Someones choice to get an abortion doesn't give someone a potentially fatal disease. Someones choice to not get vaccinated HAS led to significant deaths at this point. Via overloaded health systems, spreading the disease and of course, the much higher likelihood of death for those who are unvaccinated. Drawing a parallel to abortion is absurd.
- sul_tasto 5y ago
  I think pro-life supporters would argue that abortion leads to the death of the unborn child, who they believe has a right to be born. Is a woman required to carry an unwanted child to term because the fetus has rights? Is a Canadian trucker required to receive an unwanted vaccine to protect the old and vulnerable? Personally, I see a lot of similarities in the ambiguity of where the boundary exists between the rights and responsibilities between two parties relative to each other.
nkrisc 5y ago
The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. There's very good arguments for mandating vaccines against infectious diseases. I think debating mandated vaccinations with regards to the realistic likelihood of eradicating a disease is a debate that can be had, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The common good must be weighed against individual liberty. Even here in America, the land of the free, we do it all the time. There are countless things I can not do because it would not be in the best interest of society as a whole. In all Western societies, and many others as well, individual liberties are commonly curtailed for the common good. I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  Fundamental rights are legal absolutes that can only be negated by other rights or the a threat to the existence of the state itself that is supposed to defend these rights (e.g. war). The problem is, there are no rights to be healthy and not to catch a respiratory disease and the virus doesn't threaten the existence of the state with a 0.05% mortality rate in old and sick people. > I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others. I'm not sure to decide if you're a troll or not.
- gruez 5y ago
  >The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. What about sodomy? Receptive anal intercourse is an order of magnitude more likely to spread HIV/AIDS[1] than vaginal intercourse. Maybe what happens in the bedroom should be "curtailed for the common good"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission
  - abstract_put 5y ago
    I think what the parent comment is suggesting is pregnancy (and sodomy) overwhelmingly impact the people directly involved with it. It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party. I think it's a bit like second hand smoke vs. first hand smoke. I think it's entirely reasonable to object to second hand smoke (refusing vaccinations while insisting on participating in society) in all forms while supporting an individual's right to first hand smoke (pregnancy/sodomy).
irjustin 5y ago
The differences very much matter. You being pregnant does not increase the risk of my pregnancy.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
Oh, they very much don't want laws on their own body, but they very much want their laws on everyone else's, if you ask them how they feel about: * government control over media (especially which is non-christian, relating to LGTBQ subjects/characters, covering the history of racial discrimination, etc) * freedom to humanely end one's own life out of a conscious, informed decision to do so * the right to wear as little or as much clothing as you want, including covering your head entirely * a woman having easy, unrestricted access to contraceptives and abortion * immigration policies (the right to travel freely in search of a better life) * the death penalty * how freely you should be able to end another person's life (ie very loose carry and self defense laws) * easy, accommodating access to voting
swader999 5y ago
Yes, and where there's risk, there needs to be informed consent. Manipulation of trial data, collusion to censor, deplatforming and controlled media clearly limit informed consent.

rayiner 5y ago

Abortion is far more serious. Abortion always directly ends a human life. Not getting vaccinated creates at most an indirect increase in the probability of other people getting sick and dying—probably a minuscule fraction of one life. Many decisions we make every day have similar statistical effects—taking an international flight which kills people through pollution, or buying products the production of which creates heavy metal poisoning in third world countries. What is the incremental increase in covid deaths attributable to one person choosing not to get vaccinated, accounting for the fact that vaccination decreases but doesn’t eliminate the chances of passing on covid? What’s that compared to the incremental deaths caused by other activities?

tptacek 5y ago
Doesn't that analysis depend a whole lot on a very complicated metaphysical question of when a "human life" begins? The moment of conception? That's a fringe belief and the only answer to the question that makes your argument cohere perfectly.
- rayiner 5y ago
  I think it’s a purely scientific question with a simple answer. After conception, the organism is plainly alive. Like if we found it on Mars we would say we found life on Mars. It’s also human according to its genetics—which is generally how we decide what species something happens to be. I don’t know why you’d call that a “fringe belief.” Fully 38% of the public holds that view: https://www.wbur.org/npr/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-keep-abortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions https://www.wbur.org/npr/730183531/poll-majority-want-to-kee.... I suspect when most people assert that “life doesn’t begin at conception” they’re not referring to the literal beginning of human life, but the metaphysical question of when “human life that justifies legal protection” begins. That I agree is complex.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    Science cannot provide definitions, like of what consititutes life.