4 ms·

A temporary limitation to your freedom vs being forced to bear a child. I think those two things can be confused only if you intentionally want to confuse them.

Auracle 3y ago
You’re downplaying one and, uh, up-playing the other. Vaccines can technically have permanent side effects. You’d only be” forced to bear a child” if you decide to have sex without adequate birth control. There’s also another body involved. Just to be clear I’m pro-choice, though I think abortion should be done as early as possible. I just really dislike dishonest rhetoric.
- ithkuil 3y ago
  Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about the where people felt their rights were infringed because they couldn't go to a restaurant without a vaccine. Surely, forcing people to get a vaccine at gunpoint is as serious as it gets. The middle-ground is trickier: how to think about professionals who have been effectively forced to get a vaccine at the cost of losing their jobs and livelihood. In practice though I've heard way more complaining about absolute freedom from people in the former camp. As for the adequate birth control angle: sure, some people are careless, some people are just young, birth control methods do fail, etc. there are so many ways you can end up with a unwanted pregnancy, including some that are easier to sympathize with even for the most strict defender of the morals (I hope), like rape.
  - Auracle 3y ago
    I doubt there are good stats on this, but the only people I've ever known to have an abortion it was because they weren't using birth control (or correctly). My wife used to watch that MTV show about teen pregnancy, and they all pretty much had the same story. If I were king for a day I'd make every abortion more expensive than the last, and I would also make it more expensive the further along you are - barring fetal abnormalities and other gotchas. Those fees would go towards birth control and education about it.
- jleyank 3y ago
  I suspect the chance of accidental pregnancy > the chance of vaccine problems. Neither of these are absolute-success kinds of things. And not every vaccine target is genetically stable.
roenxi 3y ago
The limitations from abortion are similarly brief, they only apply for a handful of months. This is the issue that the abortion debate now has - we've established that people absolutely can make substantial medical decisions on behalf of others and overrule their opinion on what is in their own best interests. Killing a baby is obviously more important than statistically killing grandparents, and that was enough to overrule bodily autonomy. The justification for ignoring the pro-lifers is flimsy if you accept that the COVID mandates were reasonable - pretending that "my body my choice" is an accepted standard after COVID simply isn't feasible. It should be true, but the evidence against is overwhelming. I have business-owning anti-vax neighbours, I saw what they had to put up with. While I do agree that abortion is probably a bit more consequential the government was putting in an honest-to-goodness effort to destroy their lives and socially ostracise them through COVID. And, in hindsight, largely for insufficient reasons with questionable benefits. They eventually got COVID despite all that they were hit with too so all the abuse was for nothing. It just is a laughable position that we can force people to stay at home, force them out of work, isolate them from their peers, demand that they get vaccinated when they aren't comfortable with the idea and then expect them to pretend that making some pregnant woman carry a child is somehow more problematic. It isn't. It is less problematic. The former was much worse. If the former is an option on the table then the latter is an option on the table. A lot of nasty stuff is, apparently the standard is just 'if the government thinks it is a good idea'. That is a lousy standard, but that is what was just set for a lot of people.

Auracle 3y ago

You’re downplaying one and, uh, up-playing the other. Vaccines can technically have permanent side effects. You’d only be” forced to bear a child” if you decide to have sex without adequate birth control. There’s also another body involved. Just to be clear I’m pro-choice, though I think abortion should be done as early as possible. I just really dislike dishonest rhetoric.

ithkuil 3y ago
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was talking about the where people felt their rights were infringed because they couldn't go to a restaurant without a vaccine. Surely, forcing people to get a vaccine at gunpoint is as serious as it gets. The middle-ground is trickier: how to think about professionals who have been effectively forced to get a vaccine at the cost of losing their jobs and livelihood. In practice though I've heard way more complaining about absolute freedom from people in the former camp. As for the adequate birth control angle: sure, some people are careless, some people are just young, birth control methods do fail, etc. there are so many ways you can end up with a unwanted pregnancy, including some that are easier to sympathize with even for the most strict defender of the morals (I hope), like rape.
- Auracle 3y ago
  I doubt there are good stats on this, but the only people I've ever known to have an abortion it was because they weren't using birth control (or correctly). My wife used to watch that MTV show about teen pregnancy, and they all pretty much had the same story. If I were king for a day I'd make every abortion more expensive than the last, and I would also make it more expensive the further along you are - barring fetal abnormalities and other gotchas. Those fees would go towards birth control and education about it.
jleyank 3y ago
I suspect the chance of accidental pregnancy > the chance of vaccine problems. Neither of these are absolute-success kinds of things. And not every vaccine target is genetically stable.

roenxi 3y ago

The limitations from abortion are similarly brief, they only apply for a handful of months. This is the issue that the abortion debate now has - we've established that people absolutely can make substantial medical decisions on behalf of others and overrule their opinion on what is in their own best interests. Killing a baby is obviously more important than statistically killing grandparents, and that was enough to overrule bodily autonomy. The justification for ignoring the pro-lifers is flimsy if you accept that the COVID mandates were reasonable - pretending that "my body my choice" is an accepted standard after COVID simply isn't feasible. It should be true, but the evidence against is overwhelming. I have business-owning anti-vax neighbours, I saw what they had to put up with. While I do agree that abortion is probably a bit more consequential the government was putting in an honest-to-goodness effort to destroy their lives and socially ostracise them through COVID. And, in hindsight, largely for insufficient reasons with questionable benefits. They eventually got COVID despite all that they were hit with too so all the abuse was for nothing. It just is a laughable position that we can force people to stay at home, force them out of work, isolate them from their peers, demand that they get vaccinated when they aren't comfortable with the idea and then expect them to pretend that making some pregnant woman carry a child is somehow more problematic. It isn't. It is less problematic. The former was much worse. If the former is an option on the table then the latter is an option on the table. A lot of nasty stuff is, apparently the standard is just 'if the government thinks it is a good idea'. That is a lousy standard, but that is what was just set for a lot of people.