4 ms·
Doesn'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 pre
by LocalH 4y ago
Doesn'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.