17
   

Texas Effectively Bans Abortions

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 03:54 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
When you force a woman to get a vaccine that she doesn't want, you are telling her that she doesn't have control over her own body.

Whereas when you restrict abortion, you are telling a woman that she doesn't have control over her own body.

Yes, they are two completely different issues.

None of us object to what a woman does to her own body. We object to what she does to the other being's body inside her.


A woman is not a breeding slave for the state or for the rapists for that matter and she have right to do with her womb went she wish to do.

Male or female do not have the right to spread a deadly disease to others but that had zero to do with females having control over their wombs.

By the way it is interesting to see the state openly joining force with the rapists and forcing women to risk their lives to bring a rapist fetus to full term.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 04:18 am
@BillRM,
It is also interesting to see that Texas a state born due to the wish of slaveholders to have their slaves with them is now doing their best to turn low income women into the slaves of any male that can get his sperm inside her with or without her permission.

Of course such laws will only enslave the poor women wombs as all others women can take a plane to either another state or even another country.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 08:58 am
Ok... I think I got it now.

1) A woman has control over her womb.
2) A woman does not have control over what is injected into her veins.

Is that it?
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 09:01 am
Technically speaking... the Covid-19 vaccine also protects rapists. I am sure that most rapists would want their victims to be fully vaccinated.

(before you get bent out of shape, I am just pointing out how silly this argument is, I am not actually supporting rape).
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 10:42 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Ok... I think I got it now.

1) A woman has control over her womb.
2) A woman does not have control over what is injected into her veins.

Is that it?



Her womb have zero chance of infecting others that happen to be sharing the same space such as on airliners unlike covid.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 10:47 am
@BillRM,
I get it,

A woman has the obligation to manufacture antibodies in her body to protect the people around her. And every woman will be mandated to take a vaccine created by big Pharma that will force her body do this even with out her consent...

That is what society needs. What the woman wants doesn't matter.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 11:20 am
maxdancona wrote:
I get it,


I don't think he does.

The issue is whether public health outranks (I hate using the word "trumps" anymore) a particular interpretation of "individual freedom". I believe that BillRM makes more sense here and that maxdancona is conflating two very different situations in order to conform to the demands of his particular "ideological narrative©".
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 12:12 pm
@hightor,
My ideological narrative is simple; I have a problem with forcing people to undergo a medical procedure to which they do not consent. This is a basic principle of medical ethics.

The fact is that when you mandate a woman to get a vaccine she doesn't want, you are forcing her to undergo a medical procedure without her consent. In this case you are not giving women a choice. If you are going to push mandatory vaccines, you should be honest about this fact.

You arguments are really justifications for why you should be allowed to force women to get a vaccine they don't want in this case. Maybe they are valid. But it doesn't change what you are doing is taking away a woman's right to refuse a vaccine she doesn't want.

Maybe the correct wording is this; Women should have the control over their own bodies, except when society deems that the issue is to important to allow them to make this decision on her own.

This would allow you to state that women have control over their bodies, but still force them to get vaccines against their will. Does everyone agree with this?
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 12:19 pm
@maxdancona,
I am reluctantly pro-choice, the the reason that I am pro-choice is that a woman should be allowed to make choices concerning her own body. That is a good argument in favor of legalizing abortion, even though it troubles me because I see a fetus as a potential human.

You can't say that a woman has a complete control over her own body and then force her to take a vaccine she doesn't consent to.

The argument is that in this one case (vaccines), it is OK to force women to get the vaccine because the social need is too great. That is saying, a woman has control over her own body, but with exceptions.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 12:23 pm
@maxdancona,
LOL how many killers diseases could we bring back if we stop all vaccinations? We could even bring back the iron lung machines. Oh for the good old days before the evil government started forcing vaccinations on school children sixty years of so ago.

The words fools and idiots come to mind. There is always dewormer drugs.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 12:31 pm
@BillRM,
There are religious exemptions to school vaccinations in 48 states. These are supported by medical ethicists. School vaccination is an extreme case that does create ethical problems. This still violates rights, but it is justified by the supreme societal good.

There are no vaccinations required for adults (although I certainly stay up to date).

The ethical principle; The people should have control over their own bodies, and have the right to refuse medical treatment... is a good one.

hightor
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 01:51 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
I have a problem with forcing people to undergo a medical procedure to which they do not consent.

I agree when it comes to one's own end-of-life decisions, that's for sure. But allowing oneself to be the vector of a highly transmissible disease seems to be a profoundly anti-social choice. I think the safety of the public counts for something.

Quote:
If you are going to push mandatory vaccines, you should be honest about this fact.

I have no ability to "push mandatory vaccines" as I am neither a medical caregiver nor a policymaker. I don't believe that vaccinations can be made mandatory except as conditions of employment or admittance to an institutional setting.

All I'm saying is that public health raises different issues and refusing a vaccine is not the same as choosing to abort a pregnancy.

Quote:
There are religious exemptions to school vaccinations in 48 states.

There shouldn't be. Only medical exemptions should be allowed.
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 04:06 pm
@hightor,
I am arguing against extremism. I am pro-choice. I still don't like the extreme rhetoric coming from the pro-choice side (even though I agree with them to some extent).

There is a big difference between reasonable argument, and extremist rhetoric. That is my point.

An absolutist believe in the rights of a woman to make decisions about her own body would encompass both abortion and vaccines. The "My Body My Choice" argument is just such an absolutist argument. If you are making a more reasoned argument, then sure. These are two different issues.

If you want to make a public health argument in favor of abortion rights, or in favor of mandatory vaccines, that is fine. You can make this argument without using extreme rhetoric. Once you start yelling about slavery, or rapists, you have crossed a line into insanity.

I am pro-choice. I am against the extremist arguments coming from the pro-choice side. I can do both of these things.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Sep, 2021 08:31 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Which side is "the moralizers"? Oh... It's those anti-Albatross people, isnt it.

When they use unwanted children as scarlet letter A's, and albatrosses around the neck, absolutely.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2021 03:03 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
There is a big difference between reasonable argument, and extremist rhetoric.

Not really. Extremist rhetoric is usually a condensation of someone's reasonable argument, sloganized for the sake of brevity and consistency.

Quote:
An absolutist believe in the rights of a woman to make decisions about her own body would encompass both abortion and vaccines.

An absolutist position isn't useful to begin with so why use it to force an equivalence between two very different medical procedures with very different motivations and effects on society?

Quote:
Once you start yelling about slavery, or rapists, you have crossed a line into insanity.

Are accusations of murder still within your bounds of "sanity"?
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2021 09:21 am
@hightor,
The pro-choice side wants to murder babies. The pro-life side wants to enslave women.

Listening to to guys argue this makes it seem like murdering babies or enslaving women are the only two options.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2021 09:42 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Listening to to guys argue this makes it seem like murdering babies or enslaving women are the only two options.

Don't listen to them without summoning your inner translator. One side wishes society to consider embryos and fetuses human beings – persons.
Many people on this side of the argument would also prefer that women adopt a traditionalist conservative Abrahamic religious mindset.

The other side believes that a natural bodily process, enveloped in woman's body and sustained by her, can be terminated as a matter of personal sovereignty. Many people on this side celebrate the achievements women (and to some extent, society) have made in securing autonomy and personal freedom and escaping a life of limited expectations.

Nothing prevents people in the first category from choosing to carry a fetus to term. Nothing proposed by people on the other side would prevent a religious traditionalist from choosing this course.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2021 10:16 am
@maxdancona,
LOL no one have the right to spread a deadly disease!!!!!!!

So if you wish not to be vaccinated that fine just do not be around other people lock yourself in your home or other places where you are not placing other people at risk.

As far as children are concern you also do not have the right to place children your own or others at unneeded risk of death.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2021 11:39 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

The pro-choice side wants to murder babies. The pro-life side wants to enslave women.

Listening to to guys argue this makes it seem like murdering babies or enslaving women are the only two options.


Texas government had stated we can not protect children by forcing teachers and those around them to have shots or force the wearing of masks but we can hunt down women who is carrying fetuses and force the women to give birth no matter what.

Come on the object on it face is not saving lives but in controlling women and nothing else.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Sep, 2021 11:57 am
@BillRM,
Well, it's also imposing one's values onto others. Religious or moral. The thing is, you wouldn't go into someone's home and tell them what religion to practice, how to raise their kids, etc., but we seem to be okay telling women they have to have an unwanted child.

I predict 1) many women will obtain out of state abortions, 2) there will be a lot more babies up for adoption, and/or 3) there will be a higher use of the morning-after pill.

It's all so repressive and regressive and discouraging.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 07:08:01