4 ms·
No one is an island. You can't have total bodily autonomy if you want to live around other humans. It's an unreasonable and selfish stance. If you want to self-
by JabavuAdams 4y ago
No one is an island. You can't have total bodily autonomy if you want to live around other humans. It's an unreasonable and selfish stance. If you want to self-isolate in the woods, fine. We should have a way for people to do that.
There are a number of technical reasons why the mRNA vaccines should be safer than existing vaccines. In any case, there were non mRNA alternatives. I believe that most life-scientists are just curious and trying to do good work. I don't really trust corporate big (whatever), but pharma in this case. I do trust the individual scientists I know to be caring and empathetic people and to do their best to save lives.
- edmcnulty101 4y ago> No one is an island. You can't have total bodily autonomy if you want to live around other humans This is the exact argument the conservatives have against abortion.
- anigbrowl 4y agoThat doesn't sell your outlook well, since neither pregnancies nor abortions are contagious.
- edmcnulty101 4y agoContagious things that kill people = no bodily autonomy Non-Contagious Things that that kill people = bodily autonomy. Sounds arbitrary. My body my choice right?
- anigbrowl 4y agoNo, it doesn't sound arbitrary. It sounds predicated on the possibility for contagion, an objectively measurable event. This is why various tests/vaccinations mandatory for immigrants, eg to prevent the spread of TB. Also, fetuses aren't people in legal terms.
- belorn 4y agoAccording to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, an embryo or fetus in utero is recognized as a legal victim. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." The bill has however an explicit exception for abortions, saying that regardless if a fetuses are a person, it doesn't mean abortions should be illegal.
- edmcnulty101 4y agolots of things are contagious though fetuses aren't citizens but they are considered people... in some states.
- LocalH 4y agoDoesn't sound arbitrary to me. If something isn't contagious then there's no "automatic" effect on those around a person. If it is contagious, then the mere presence of the person can have a harmful effect. It only seems arbitrary to me if I look at it from a narcissistic perspective.
- edmcnulty101 4y agoOr from a rational perspective. Killing a baby is an effect on someone around(technically inside) a person. So while it's not contagious, the effect of killing someone is the same. And therefore no bodily autonomy should be allowed in this case. It's the exact same logic used for covid restrictions. You don't have bodily autonomy in cases where you can hurt others.
- JabavuAdams 4y agoWe were talking about vaccines. It's somewhat disingenuous to start talking about abortion. That said, the fundamental disagreement w.r.t abortion is whether or when a fetus is a person with the same legal protections as a born child, and to what extent to weigh this question, or these potential rights against the rights of the mother. Abortion necessarily involves the killing of an organism. Anyone arguing otherwise is not basing their argument in reality. However, many commonly accepted and legal actions almost inevitably involve the killing of organisms: walking, driving, excavation, building. Our legal systems typically even allows for the killing of complex, almost-surely sentient creatures for food, and other purposes. This extends as far as the killing of humans under certain very limited circumstances. The essential disagreement on abortion is whether and when the killing that is an inescapable part of abortion is permissible, justified, lawful, and generally not murder.