7 ms·

fetuses are not babies... and why would you want someone reminding you of a rape, daily?

amatecha 3y ago
Not to mention, agency over one's corporeal self essentially dictates the right to abortion. I uncompromisingly assert the right to decide what happens to my body and decide what medical procedures to undergo.
- kingstoned 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - amatecha 3y ago
    They sure can. It's their right[0]. It might be a bad choice, but it's theirs to make. There are enough sensible people to attain a good % of vaccination for whatever transmissible illness. We can avoid trampling on others' rights by ensuring a high standard of education -- the problem solves itself when people understand how/why things work the way they do. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/... (article 3)
  - orwin 3y ago
    Yes! I think its fair though to have schools refusing to accept unvaccinated people if immunodeficient kids are present (and refuse non-vaccinated nurses in immunology and cancer wards), but absolutely, you should decide by yourself.
    - jMyles 3y ago
      Even those requirements need to be underpinned by clear evidence of a sterilizing effect of the vaccine in question. (And I'm curious: by your logic, do you support re-adoption of the oral polio vaccine? Some interesting developments: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-generation-oral-polio-vaccine https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-gener...)
  - jMyles 3y ago
    ...of... course. Particularly following the shoddy rollouts of the past few years, and the Gruber and Krause resignations, and the general limelight shown on VRBPAC and the FDA processes, it's pretty obvious that coercive uptake creates a set of horrible incentives. I'd think that's one of the lessons enjoying consensus henceforth. Good vaccines are sufficiently awesome to drive adoption by dint of their effects. The most palpable effect of coercion is the presence of subpar vaccines on the market, tarnishing the reputation vaccination as a concept - which of course is dangerous for public health.
HumblyTossed 3y ago
The cruelty is the point. The people making and passing these laws and people voting for the people to do it want this cruelty. They crave it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- gremlinsinc 3y ago
  They think, maybe rightfully so that this hurts the out group more than the in group (minorities), disclaimer: I'm a white male, except say that group is black or Hispanic, and have families that tend to vote the opposite way, then they're in effect hurting their own power hold by forcing more births. They're so worried about immigrants taking jobs what about the anti abortion baby boom making jobs more scarce in 18 or 20 years, and changing whole political landscapes?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
throw0101d 3y ago
> fetuses are not babies... This probably is the central question on this topic: * When does the gamete/zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/whatever go from being not-human to being human? Next: * Just because it is/may be human, is it owed anything? [0] Peter Singer for example has argued (in the past?) that even up to ~two years of age, the 'entity' should not be considered human: > In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood. > Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[65]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[66] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_in... The various positions on the topic, if taken to their logical end, may lead to conclusions that folks may not realize if they haven't thought about it thoroughly: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_abortion_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_a... [0] Thomson for one argued that we do not,[1] and even if you were (e.g.) in a cabin in the woods,[2] and one day there was a bay left on your front door, you could step over it and without any moral qualms [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion [2] > Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. If the fetus becomes a person long before birth — as even Thomson concedes — and if we can owe things to people simply because they are people, then we can owe things to the fetus as well, long before birth. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/philosophy-not-religion-is-at-the-heart-of-the-abortion-debate/ https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/phi... [2] https://archive.is/y3DVM https://archive.is/y3DVM

Not to mention, agency over one's corporeal self essentially dictates the right to abortion. I uncompromisingly assert the right to decide what happens to my body and decide what medical procedures to undergo.

kingstoned 3y ago
[flagged]
- amatecha 3y ago
  They sure can. It's their right[0]. It might be a bad choice, but it's theirs to make. There are enough sensible people to attain a good % of vaccination for whatever transmissible illness. We can avoid trampling on others' rights by ensuring a high standard of education -- the problem solves itself when people understand how/why things work the way they do. [0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/... (article 3)
- orwin 3y ago
  Yes! I think its fair though to have schools refusing to accept unvaccinated people if immunodeficient kids are present (and refuse non-vaccinated nurses in immunology and cancer wards), but absolutely, you should decide by yourself.
  - jMyles 3y ago
    Even those requirements need to be underpinned by clear evidence of a sterilizing effect of the vaccine in question. (And I'm curious: by your logic, do you support re-adoption of the oral polio vaccine? Some interesting developments: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-generation-oral-polio-vaccine https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/polio/who-prequalifies-next-gener...)
- jMyles 3y ago
  ...of... course. Particularly following the shoddy rollouts of the past few years, and the Gruber and Krause resignations, and the general limelight shown on VRBPAC and the FDA processes, it's pretty obvious that coercive uptake creates a set of horrible incentives. I'd think that's one of the lessons enjoying consensus henceforth. Good vaccines are sufficiently awesome to drive adoption by dint of their effects. The most palpable effect of coercion is the presence of subpar vaccines on the market, tarnishing the reputation vaccination as a concept - which of course is dangerous for public health.

HumblyTossed 3y ago

The cruelty is the point. The people making and passing these laws and people voting for the people to do it want this cruelty. They crave it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gremlinsinc 3y ago
They think, maybe rightfully so that this hurts the out group more than the in group (minorities), disclaimer: I'm a white male, except say that group is black or Hispanic, and have families that tend to vote the opposite way, then they're in effect hurting their own power hold by forcing more births. They're so worried about immigrants taking jobs what about the anti abortion baby boom making jobs more scarce in 18 or 20 years, and changing whole political landscapes?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

throw0101d 3y ago

> fetuses are not babies... This probably is the central question on this topic: * When does the gamete/zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/whatever go from being not-human to being human? Next: * Just because it is/may be human, is it owed anything? [0] Peter Singer for example has argued (in the past?) that even up to ~two years of age, the 'entity' should not be considered human: > In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood. > Similar to his argument for abortion rights, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[65]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living".[66] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_infanticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Euthanasia_and_in... The various positions on the topic, if taken to their logical end, may lead to conclusions that folks may not realize if they haven't thought about it thoroughly: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_abortion_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_aspects_of_the_a... [0] Thomson for one argued that we do not,[1] and even if you were (e.g.) in a cabin in the woods,[2] and one day there was a bay left on your front door, you could step over it and without any moral qualms [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion [2] > Some philosophers, like Thomson, think so, but very many philosophers disagree. If I live alone in the woods and wake one day to find an infant on my doorstep, am I obligated to care for it? Or may I simply step over it and go on about my day, until it dies from exposure and neglect? To think I am obligated in justice to help it, as a great many people (philosophers and non-philosophers alike) do, is to think we owe things to other people simply because they are people. And if we can owe things to other people simply because they are people, then Thomson’s argument falls apart. If the fetus becomes a person long before birth — as even Thomson concedes — and if we can owe things to people simply because they are people, then we can owe things to the fetus as well, long before birth. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/philosophy-not-religion-is-at-the-heart-of-the-abortion-debate/ https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2022/06/05/phi... [2] https://archive.is/y3DVM https://archive.is/y3DVM