Elysienne Nebula Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 On 10/2/2021 at 3:35 PM, Arielle Popstar said: I wonder if the woman carrying the sign that says "Keep your laws off my body" uses it also at protests against vaccine mandates and vaccine passport requirements. It's a false equivalence to compare vaccine mandates with reproductive rights. One has to be very politically partisan - or heavily indoctrinated by the media one consumes - in order to confuse the two. Deliberately not getting the vaccine is choosing to be a potential COVID carrier. I would call such a person an infectivist, because they're taking a pro-disease stance. As for mandates and passports.....*laughs in international traveler* 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elysienne Nebula Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 On 10/3/2021 at 1:08 AM, Sam1 Bellisserian said: Because you are either for it or not. There really is no middle ground when it comes to abortion. The baby is either born or aborted. The reasons don't really matter. Also people are judged solely for the fact that they either are for abortion or against it, the same as if they are democrat or republican. It ends up being a S~T storm with no one changing anyone's mind on either side and just blathering on about why they are right. That's why. Most discussions are like that though. As for abortion and reproductive rights, there's not a lot of minds being changed because the sides have strawmanned each other's position. So, yes, they're not even addressing what the other side is really saying. As for US Republicans and Democrats....I can't say I understand what the differences are beyond Republicans claim to be for small governance and less spending but end up spending a lot and making big governance...while Democrats say they're for humane governance and yet love to drone strike weddings and funerals in other countries. Both parties are bought and paid for by America's corporate oligarchs - the ones who use media to create partisan political sentiments so that you all fight each other, while they sell you the tools and weapons to do so. They don't care as long as you keep buying and consuming what they're selling you. If that means hate your neighbor, even better, because nothing sells like fear and hatred. Human fear is the perfect market - even better than sex. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kali Wylder Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 On 10/3/2021 at 2:08 AM, Sam1 Bellisserian said: Because you are either for it or not. There really is no middle ground when it comes to abortion. The baby is either born or aborted. The reasons don't really matter. Also people are judged solely for the fact that they either are for abortion or against it, the same as if they are democrat or republican. It ends up being a S~T storm with no one changing anyone's mind on either side and just blathering on about why they are right. That's why. That's the thing though, isn't it? If you are against abortions you see it in terms of babies born or aborted. If you are pro choice, you see it in terms of who has the right to control what happens to a woman's body. You can be against abortions and be in favor of a woman's right to control her own body. It's not just one thing or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 On 10/2/2021 at 5:40 PM, Rowan Amore said: And if abortion were an issue that effected everyone equally, then you could make a comparison. It's not. 1 hour ago, Elysienne Nebula said: It's a false equivalence to compare vaccine mandates with reproductive rights. One has to be very politically partisan - or heavily indoctrinated by the media one consumes - in order to confuse the two. For a measure of legal and moral consistency, one has to be seen as equivalent to another. It would be completely hypocritical and prejudicially biased to support the right to autonomy over one's reproductive rights but not allow one to have a say over being a lab rat for a state mandated experimental gene therapy that its own scientists have already determined has a slew of side effects, and does not prevent one contracting and spreading the disease it is supposed to prevent. Quote To me, it's always seemed more about the continued subjugation of women and our rights than anything else. As I've said countless times over the years, if this were a men's only issue, it wouldn't be an issue and would probably have government funding. One thing I have learned since my father passed away is the fact that my mild and meek mother had quite a bit of sway over the larger decisions and actions that happened within our particular family. My blustery and authoritative father was often just her mouthpiece even if he did not wholly agree with her wishes and in fact looking back was the more so when he disagreed but wanted to keep the peace between them. No doubt the mileage of others will vary to some degree but I am sure that putting the onus all on one specific gender, will often miss where the real power dynamics lay. 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 28 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: For a measure of legal and moral consistency, one has to be seen as equivalent to another. It would be completely hypocritical and prejudicially biased to support the right to autonomy over one's reproductive rights but not allow one to have a say over being a lab rat for a state mandated experimental gene therapy that its own scientists have already determined has a slew of side effects, and does not prevent one contracting and spreading the disease it is supposed to prevent. One thing I have learned since my father passed away is the fact that my mild and meek mother had quite a bit of sway over the larger decisions and actions that happened within our particular family. My blustery and authoritative father was often just her mouthpiece even if he did not wholly agree with her wishes and in fact looking back was the more so when he disagreed but wanted to keep the peace between them. No doubt the mileage of others will vary to some degree but I am sure that putting the onus all on one specific gender, will often miss where the real power dynamics lay. The women having abortions legally have NO effect on YOUR life or health. The people NOT vaccinated CAN and DO effect others' lives. So no, It's not a valid comparison. Please stop with your continuing Covid conspiracy theories. We all know, at this point, where you stand. Try not to pollute yet another thread. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick0678 Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 25 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: The women having abortions legally have NO effect on YOUR life or health. The people NOT vaccinated CAN and DO effect others' lives. So no, It's not a valid comparison. Actually even vaccinated people will still spread it. They simply won't die of it. "The vaccine is very effective in preventing severe disease and death but vaccinated people may still get infected and transmit the infection." https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/questions-answers-prevention#:~:text=Yes%2C vaccinated people should,risk of this happening. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 Just now, Nick0678 said: Actually even vaccinated people will still spread it. They simply won't die of it. "The vaccine is very effective in preventing severe disease and death but vaccinated people may still get infected and transmit the infection." https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/questions-answers/questions-answers-prevention#:~:text=Yes%2C vaccinated people should,risk of this happening. And why I continue to wear my mask out in public as people should. I'd hate to inadvertently spread it to someone UNABLE to be vaccinated should I be carrying it. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Mistwalker Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 5 hours ago, Mollymews said: am not sure how deputising the citizens to carry out a State law enforcement function can be done to avoid a State official being included in a lawsuit. As the legal deputy would be acting with the legal authority of the State, and in the absence of any other official then it would be the State Governor, on whose signature into law the deputisation was authorised validated is not like a bounty hunter, who is empowered by the contract signed by the bailed person which makes bounty hunting a matter of a signed civil contract. In the case of the legally deputised abortion-support hunter there is no civil contract only the State authorised deputation am pretty sure that legal minds are thinking about this already tho You're confusing bail bondsmen with bounty hunters. While a person can be both, it's pretty rare. A bail bondsman is any person, agency or corporation that will act as a surety and pledge money or property as bail for the appearance of a defendant in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail_bondsman A bounty hunter is a private agent working for bail bonds who captures fugitives or criminals for a commission or bounty. The occupation, officially known as bail enforcement officer, bail enforcement agent, bail agent, recovery agent, bail recovery agent, or fugitive recovery agent, has traditionally operated outside the legal constraints that govern police officers and other agents of the state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_hunter 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 5 hours ago, Mollymews said: am not sure how deputising the citizens to carry out a State law enforcement function can be done to avoid a State official being included in a lawsuit. As the legal deputy would be acting with the legal authority of the State, and in the absence of any other official then it would be the State Governor, on whose signature into law the deputisation was authorised validated is not like a bounty hunter, who is empowered by the contract signed by the bailed person which makes bounty hunting a matter of a signed civil contract. In the case of the legally deputised abortion-support hunter there is no civil contract only the State authorised deputation am pretty sure that legal minds are thinking about this already tho Yeah, Molly, there's that -- this insane part of the Texas law which turns citizens into spies or vigilantes paid by the government to tattle on others. No doubt attorneys are shaking their head on this one, although I'm not sure what you're trying to sort out applies. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/20/1039122713/doctor-texas-abortion-sued Texas is tackling Roe v. Wade with a 'vigilante' economy, where rewards of $10,000 or more go to lawsuits against anyone thought to even aid an abortion "According to the law, private citizens can sue anyone seen to be "aiding and abetting" an abortion — whether or not they have any personal connection to them. Anyone found to have advised, helped pay for, or given a ride to an abortion clinic is fair game, including teachers, parents, clergy, Uber drivers, and friends. If the plaintiff wins the case, they could be awarded a minimum of $10,000, plus attorneys' fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would not qualify for legal fee relief, no matter the outcome of the case. In this way, the law incentivizes widespread prosecution, with no disincentive for baseless claims". https://www.businessinsider.com/texas-abortion-law-incentivizes-vigilante-lawsuits-by-citizens-2021-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Nick0678 said: 1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said: The women having abortions legally have NO effect on YOUR life or health. The people NOT vaccinated CAN and DO effect others' lives. So no, It's not a valid comparison. Actually even vaccinated people will still spread it. They simply won't die of it. There is the possibility vaccinated people can still get Covid, but far fewer will as vaccination protects most of them. And so the important point is that vaccination offers immense protection and saves lives. Nobody said vaccination has to be perfect -- your point does not make Rowan's point invalid (her point being that abortion does not affect anybody else's life whereas not being vaccinated certainly does). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said: 4 hours ago, Elysienne Nebula said: It's a false equivalence to compare vaccine mandates with reproductive rights. One has to be very politically partisan - or heavily indoctrinated by the media one consumes - in order to confuse the two. For a measure of legal and moral consistency, one has to be seen as equivalent to another. It would be completely hypocritical and prejudicially biased to support the right to autonomy over one's reproductive rights but not allow one to have a say over being a lab rat for a state mandated experimental gene therapy that its own scientists have already determined has a slew of side effects, and does not prevent one contracting and spreading the disease it is supposed to prevent. No it does not have to be seen as equivalent for moral and legal consistency to prevail. We restrict individual rights in this case via requiring vaccines because not doing so can harm others. That's why we don't allow kids in schools if they haven't been vaccinated. It's why we 'force' you to drive a certain speed. It's why you aren't allowed to use your free speech to scream 'fire!' in a crowded building. Almost all people dying in hospitals today have not been vaccinated, or they were among the unfortunate who could not be vaccinated due to health reasons -- there could be no clearer proof that the vaccines work and lives are saved via this measure. Restricting a woman's right to choose the best time to have her children does not prevent the harming of others like vaccine requirements do. In fact, it harms society to force this on women as unwanted children are born into families that are too poor to take care of them and dangerous back-alley abortions will take precedence over legal, safe abortion. It is disproportionately poor women of color who will suffer btw as wealthy women have the means to pay for their abortion as was the case in the past when abortion was illegal. Edited October 4, 2021 by Luna Bliss 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick0678 Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 24 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: There is the possibility vaccinated people can still get Covid, but far fewer will as vaccination protects most of them. And so the important point is that vaccination offers immense protection and saves lives. Nobody said vaccination has to be perfect -- your point does not make Rowan's point invalid (her point being that abortion does not affect anybody else's life whereas not being vaccinated certainly does). Vaccinated or not you still spread the virus once you get infected. (In regards to abortions i already told my opinion two days ago.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 12 minutes ago, Nick0678 said: Vaccinated or not you still spread the virus once you get infected. (In regards to abortions i already told my opinion two days ago.) Yes true, but we are discussing why we need to restrict individual freedoms sometimes -- all cases, all reasons for such restrictions are not equal. That was the point Rowan made which you responded to. There is no equivalency between restricting individual freedoms for public safety vs restricting individual freedoms due to religious notions and renegade lawmakers that only serve to further their agenda and have no public safety benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orwar Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 5 hours ago, Elysienne Nebula said: It's a false equivalence to compare vaccine mandates with reproductive rights. 5 hours ago, Elysienne Nebula said: Deliberately not getting the vaccine is choosing to be a potential COVID carrier. I would call such a person an infectivist, because they're taking a pro-disease stance. Well, if we're to be picky (and aren't we always?), that's also a false equivalence. That one is anti-vaccination doesn't mean that one is pro-disease per se. I haven't heard a whole lot of anti-vaxxers claiming they want to get sick, or that they want someone else to get sick. Mostly they're just irrationally scared of .. 5G, or WiFi, or something (I usually zone out). But it is also actually a potentially interesting comparison. In one case, the government wants to tell you what you can't do with your body, and in the other they want to tell you what you must do with your body. Either of the two could well, in a (very pessimistic) slippery slope, be seen as a mandate to justify the other, as it would make it apparent that the government has final say over your physical being. Which, if empathy alone wasn't enough cause, should make men oppose illegalisation of abortion as vehemently as women should. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 As soon as one single solitary woman having an abortion has the potential to effect anyone they may come in contact with, then there could be a comparison. Let's leave covid discussions where they belong. In the locked threads. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick0678 Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: Yes true, but we are discussing why we need to restrict individual freedoms sometimes -- all cases, all reasons for such restrictions are not equal. That was the point Rowan made which you responded to. There is no equivalency between restricting individual freedoms for public safety vs restricting individual freedoms due to religious notions and renegade lawmakers that only serve to further their agenda and have no public safety benefits. I am against restricting humans freedoms regardless. What people call public safety in the capitalistic countries i simply call it bs so you do realize i am not the right person to talk to about such stuff. (Now in regards to religious notions etc ... well i am an atheist so don't really care.) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 4 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said: One thing I have learned since my father passed away is the fact that my mild and meek mother had quite a bit of sway over the larger decisions and actions that happened within our particular family. My blustery and authoritative father was often just her mouthpiece even if he did not wholly agree with her wishes and in fact looking back was the more so when he disagreed but wanted to keep the peace between them. No doubt the mileage of others will vary to some degree but I am sure that putting the onus all on one specific gender, will often miss where the real power dynamics lay. Nobody is putting the responsibility on one gender, or saying men have all the power all the time. There are plenty of distasteful, manipulative women seeking power in any way they can who pay little attention to what's fair. Nobody is 'man-shaming'. I assure you I love my grandson and my ex-husband was a fine human being. And plenty of women don't believe abortion should be legal, and plenty of men were walking alongside the women in the recent abortion rights march. But it's just a fact that men have held the reigns of power and control through most of known History and still do to a lesser degree (at least in Western societies). I could cite examples of this on and on...how women are still at a disadvantage...receiving less pay for equal work, for example. Do I need to get a total of all the women in shelters to protect them from abusive men? Or dig up more facts than the one off the top of my head (that 10 times the amount of women are murdered by their male partners compared to men murdered by female partners). For whatever reason, far too many men think they should have power over women and control them. This is not a 'man issue' at all. The issue is that a portion of society believes that it is perfectly okay to have a stratified society where certain levels of this stratified society have power and advantage over those they deem as 'lower'. This stratification, this division into levels where some parts of society have power and control others, is what is known as the 'patriarchy'. Men have typically been at the top of the chain with the power, making the decisions, but 'patriarchy' is not synonymous with 'male' -- it just happens that men have been at the top. I'm not going to go into tests which demonstrate whether men are naturally/genetically more controlling or aggressive than women with a greater propensity to compete and win (which naturally forces those you won over to the bottom of the societal heap). Or whether this is the natural state of the human species that cannot be altered. Some research says it is, while other research says we evolved to cooperate as much as to compete. I suspect there are biological elements to our dilemma, but I more see socialization as the cause of stratification -- we want men to be strong, to compete and win, take care of the family. To actually own women in many cases. If they don't follow this path we frequently call them names. They are said to be "p***ywhipped", or "not wearing the pants in the family". We often make fun of men if they cry or show weakness. So we are basically teaching that winning at all costs is a valuable goal, that the domination of others and being in control which keeps others on the bottom rungs of society, is a good thing. As Religion developed long ago it was imbedded in a patriarchal society, and many Religions seek to continue societal arrangements in ways they believe were sent by God. Religion decided long ago that something mystical happened when egg and sperm joined -- a soul descended from 'on high' at this point and infused this meeting, making it sacred, and so we are killing this soul, this baby, when we abort it. I don't think we should be using ancient religions derived in patriarchal societies to form our laws however, although there is certainly a growing group of people (in the U.S.) who do not believe in separation of church and state and are seeking to make the U.S. a Christian nation. Far too many of them. And they are the ones who pushed for this noxious law in Texas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick0678 Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: Religion decided long ago that something mystical happened when egg and sperm joined -- a soul descended from 'on high' at this point and infused this meeting, making it sacred, and so we are killing this soul, this baby, when we abort it. Ok if that's the story that Christians like to believe fine but not everyone is a Christian. If you are a Buddhist or Muslim or Atheist or any of the other 4000+ religions that story is insignificant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlen Onyx Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 You could argue that a woman having an abortion does affect other people, especially the Father, if not given the chance to be part of that decision. Yes, I am aware that people feel women have the right to do what they want in regards to their body but it can also have an emotional affect on others. I won't say whether or not I'm pro or anti abortion but I do think that the wishes of the Father should be taken into consideration as well. After all, if the woman decides to have the baby the Father has no right to say no in providing support for that child whether he wants to or not. So in reality he has no say whatsoever when in reality if it weren't for both of them there would be no baby at all. I am also aware that if the father was needed to sign off on getting an abortion that women would simply state they did not know who the father was. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 7 hours ago, Finite said: I think it's contentious because issues like this in the US can have ramifications that last decades. Comparing US politics to other parts of the world is like comparing apples to oranges. US regions and some states are the size of some countries. It's the fact that it's politically contentious at all, though, and that it's still contentious after 30 years, that's surprising. In the UK, it's always been treated as an "issue of conscience" (meaning that the parliamentary parties don't whip their MPs to vote one or way or another, and there's a free vote on it) and attempts seriously to restrict women's reproductive rights have never gained traction here. Some individual politicians, often quite senior ones, have expressed their opposition to abortion, but every parliamentary vote on restricting the time limits always goes the same way, and that's not likely to change. That's what I meant -- the fact people are still arguing about abortion in the US seems strange to many outsiders, as does the fact it's become so political an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 27 minutes ago, Nick0678 said: 47 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: Religion decided long ago that something mystical happened when egg and sperm joined -- a soul descended from 'on high' at this point and infused this meeting, making it sacred, and so we are killing this soul, this baby, when we abort it. Ok if that's the story that Christians like to believe fine but not everyone is a Christian. If you are a Buddhist or Muslim or Atheist or any of the other 4000+ religions that story is insignificant. If I remember right you live in Eastern Europe right? So I can't expect you to understand what's going on here in the U.S. I'll try to explain briefly. We have a large percentage of the population who are religious (primarily Evangelicals in my location) and believe abortion is wrong because God or their preacher says so. (Not all simply accept the edict of their pastor -- some have examined the issues deeply and reached their own conclusion -- but far too many just go along with what their preacher tells them is right). Many of these religious people are in governmental positions, or if not religious are aware that pandering to this large group of Evangelicals is the way to score political votes and thereby stay in power. Political parties and associates are the primary reason abortion is such a hot-button issue, so polarized -- Evangelicals have been pressured to be excessively political throughout the last decades. Fusing state power with religion is dangerous, need I say. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mollymews Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: "According to the law, private citizens can sue anyone seen to be "aiding and abetting" an abortion — whether or not they have any personal connection to them. as I understand it the legal question is whether this law deputises a citizen to have standing in a court of law standing that this law suggests that they have. Standing which if granted by the court would give the citizen State agency. And if so then can a State delegate their authority to an agent and not be answerable in the Court for that delegation (setting aside for a moment the other arguments about what it is the citizen is deputised to do) i think one of the lawsuit already being presented is designed to have the court rule on this question. Can a State deputise a citizen and not be answerable in a court of law for the deputisation the law as wrote will I think be moot should the court determine that such a citizen has no standing in the court 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, Mollymews said: as I understand it the legal question is whether this law deputises a citizen to have standing in a court of law standing that this law suggests that they have. Standing which if granted by the court would give the citizen State agency. And if so then can a State delegate their authority to an agent and not be answerable in the Court for that delegation (setting aside for a moment the other arguments about what it is the citizen is deputised to do) i think one of the lawsuit already being presented is designed to have the court rule on this question. Can a State deputise a citizen and not be answerable in a court of law for the deputisation the law as wrote will I think be moot should the court determine that such a citizen has no standing in the court Needless to say I hope the ruling goes that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted October 4, 2021 Share Posted October 4, 2021 36 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said: You could argue that a woman having an abortion does affect other people, especially the Father, if not given the chance to be part of that decision. Yes, I am aware that people feel women have the right to do what they want in regards to their body but it can also have an emotional affect on others. I won't say whether or not I'm pro or anti abortion but I do think that the wishes of the Father should be taken into consideration as well. After all, if the woman decides to have the baby the Father has no right to say no in providing support for that child whether he wants to or not. So in reality he has no say whatsoever when in reality if it weren't for both of them there would be no baby at all. I am also aware that if the father was needed to sign off on getting an abortion that women would simply state they did not know who the father was. I never meant to imply it doesn't have an effect on anyone else. It has no effect on the general population so comparing it with the vaccine is irrelevant. Just as any decision between partners, it should be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted October 4, 2021 Author Share Posted October 4, 2021 (edited) This looks like an interesting article: From Commonplace to Controversial: The Different Histories of Abortion in Europe and the United States "Religious arguments typically do not have as much sway in secularized Western Europe as they do in the United States and as a result it is more difficult to make moralistic arguments about abortion". Edited October 4, 2021 by Luna Bliss 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.