Bodily Autonomy: Abortions & Vaccines

[Bobby_2021]

Two Genuine Questions:

1) If pregnant lady being killed amounts to double homicide, then why is abortion not considered as murder? 

The mother, virtue of her bodily Autonomy, has the right to end a life, which would be considered a murder if someone else did it.

Does different people doing the same act, change the fact of the matter?

Should the death be classified as a single murder instead?

One person doing it means bodily Autonomy while someone else doing it amounts to murder.

2) Why didn't #MyBodyMyChoice did not apply for vaccine mandates? Why was vaccines was forced on everyone undermining their bodily autonomy?

Many people who simply sided with Anti mandates were casted as anti vaxxers by the pro vaxxers. Now the same people is bringing the issue on abortions.

I myself am pro abortion and pro vaccine.

But serious questions from the other side must be addressed.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[BadHippie]

Society has turned upside down, left-wing is for censorship right-wing for free speech, mandates are for freedom, being healthy means having a negative test not actually being healthy, and so on. 

What do you expect from a society this sick? We have been doing this for years. 

Just a few things from my personal experience

• People running to FFF (Friday for Future) demonstration and proceed eating at McDonald's afterwards. 
• Unhealthy People who got a vaccine try to talk me into getting one to, meanwhile they are sick like every second week, while I haven't had anything for more than 2 years. 
• Spending Billions of dollars for developing vaccines to save lives, instead of using the money smartly and help more people. 
• European countries not wanting AstraZeneca Vaccine, so they send them to Africa. Proceed to introduce a law that says you can't travel to Europe with the AstraZeneca-Vaccine (Love that one) 
• ... 

How can you be Pro Abortion and Pro Vaccine? Do you mean pro-vaccine mandates? Or you just think the vaccine will save us all? 

[zurew]

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

1) If pregnant lady being killed amounts to double homicide, then why is abortion not considered as murder? 

Does the mother, virtue of her bodily Autonomy has the right to end a life, which would be considered had someone else did it.

Does different people doing the same act change the fact of the matter?

Should the death be classified as a single murder instead?

One person doing it means bodily Autonomy while someone else doing it amounts to murder

The abortion arguments are often revolving around what do we actually call a human. Where do we want to draw our exact lines. Because most of those people who advocating for no abortion at all, they do not think about a sperm as a human but they will draw their line somewhere else.

Regarding to the "Should the death be classified as a single murder" it depends on in what development stage do we call a fetus actually a human, where do we draw the line. So it correlates with my first point.

55 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

2) Why didn't #MyBodyMyChoice did not apply for vaccine mandates? Why was vaccines was forced on everyone undermining their bodily autonomy?

Because its fundamentally different from the abortion.

Not being vaccinated can cause harm for society and people around you, can shot down hospitals etcetc. Being able to have an abortion does not.

Edited May 5, 2022 by zurew

[Bobby_2021]

1 hour ago, BadHippie said:

How can you be Pro Abortion and Pro Vaccine? Do you mean pro-vaccine mandates? Or you just think the vaccine will save us all? 

Pro vaccine means I believe in the effectiveness of the vaccine and have took it myself but I don't require others to take it. 

 

Pro abortion means women must have the right to abortion if they need it

[Rokazulu]

This does highlight the importance of holding opposing viewpoints simultaneously.

Killing an ant is murder according to my view. But, I rather we reward people for good behavior rather than create laws that punish bad behavior. When you ask someone pro-life why they continue to eat meat, they have no answer. Nor, do they have a good response for those who are homeless. These labels obviously do us no good when either side uses them when politically convenient.

The mandates were implemented out of a great fear for the health of all individuals, but if those measures actually worked for the individual, you wouldn't need anyone else to follow them. I trust it doesn't happen again. And if it does. Perhaps, we need to add a lettuce mandate on top of it, so at least we can show that we understand the root cause.

But, whether the hypocrisy is known or not, we still have to allow those with higher capacity to create change (adult humans), their free will intact. Honestly! These clothing mandates are restrictive enough!

Edited May 5, 2022 by Rokazulu

[Leo Gura]

Society has had vaccine mandates for 200+ years. Nothing new here. Abortions do not go viral.

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Where do we want to draw our exact lines. Because most of those people who advocating for no abortion at all, they do not think about a sperm as a human but they will draw their line somewhere else.

I think instead of having a pinpoint line, pro life are looking at *potential*.

If something becomes a baby, when not interfered with, then it holds the potential to be human. Once it acquires potential, then it is only a matter of time it becomes an autonomous human, thereby entitled to all rights that comes along with it. So harming the potential amounts to murder. Well there is no denying that anything that has a heartbeat doesn't hold life on it's own. It's foolish to equate something that has a heartbeat as not being human.

Once you have a heartbeat it is only a matter of *location* and some time till you are a completely autonomous human entitled to all rights. Clearly if you see something that has a heartbeat, you clearly know it's life. Life stops when your heartbeat stops.

We can be clear that *location* of an entity dosen't imply whether it has life or not. So if it has heartbeat, it has life.

Hence harming that life, amounts to murder

[If you go too far with "where to draw line?", then you won't even be able to definite what a human is, which will deem the whole conversation as frivolous, since muder doesn't really exist as well.]

That's solves the "where you draw the line?"  Pretty much. The argument that can still stand is Bodily autonomy. That women should be able to whatever they want with their body.

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Not being vaccinated can cause harm for society and people around you,

Well abortion can also harm the humans around you. So there is one similarity.

Well, you have to understand that different people have different ideas of "harm to society". Infringing on their bodily Autonomy is literally harm to society from the pov of people that dosen't want to get vaccinated. 

But according to what you said, it is ok for the government to pass laws that violate bodily Autonomy, if it harms life around us. It clearly does in the case of abortion.

To elaborate the case of vaccines, those people at the risk of flooding the hospitals could have been advised to self isolate, since going out is going to spread the disease anyway. Despite that the government choose to violate bodily Autonomy, which is still justified according to you.

I can't help but think one of the statement has to be wrong. Both are contradicting each other.

Either Bodily autonomy must prevail or it must not.

 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Abortions do not go viral.

Doesn't it account for murder though? 

Plus even if it, I think women should be able to do it. I personally do believe that. But still it does seem to be murder.

[puporing]

@Bobby_2021 We do not currently live in "utopia" where every child is automatically taken care of despite what the state of the biological mother and father might be. Maybe if one day we collectively reached a point where we choose to take care of every potential birth/child no matter whose womb they came out of can we start to diminish the need for abortions. Just not the case right now - there's a high cost with child rearing, why should that be enforced on someone who can't/doesn't want that? Sounds like slavery to me.

[Bobby_2021]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Society has had vaccine mandates for 200+ years.

What do you say to someone that resists mandates citing #MyBodyMyChoice.

To be clear they are not Anti vaxxers. Just Anti-MANDATES. ie people who believe in their own bodily Autonomy.

That they have the right to decide what goes inside their own body.

Also society also had slavery for millions of years. That doesn't justify having it anymore. 

Edited May 5, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

@puporing 

I am personally in support of abortions. 

I wanted to dig in to see whether it constitutes for murder based on how we classify murder based on existing laws. This is purely a philosophical argument.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

think instead of having a pinpoint line, pro life are looking at *potential*.

If something becomes a baby, when not interfered with, then it holds the potential to be human. Once it acquires potential, then it is only a matter of time it becomes an autonomous human, thereby entitled to all rights that comes along with it. So harming the potential amounts to murder. Well there is no denying that anything that has a heartbeat doesn't hold life on it's own. It's foolish to equate something that has a heartbeat as not being human.

Once you have a heartbeat it is only a matter of *location* and some time till you are a completely autonomous human entitled to all rights. Clearly if you see something that has a heartbeat, you clearly know it's life. Life stops when your heartbeat stops.

We can be clear that *location* of an entity dosen't imply whether it has life or not. So if it has heartbeat, it has life.

Hence harming that life, amounts to murder

I know the potentiality argument, because thats what pro-life people choose because they can't defend their morality any other way.

If you want to defend the "potentiality" argument you are going to have a really hard time doing it. Why don't we call having a blowjob or handjob or having sex with a condom on as murder? Because sperm has the potentiality to become a human, so why not consider it murder? So you can't really escape the 'line argument'.

accounts to murder but not necessarily human murder, thats the point. Most people don't give a damn about killing life around them. For instance you can kill insects thats a life form and no one gives a damn about it, or i could name a million different kind of life-forms that you can kill without any laws protecting them.

So lets get deeper into it. Anything that has a heart accounts as murder? Should we have laws that protects every living creature that has a heart? See its going to be really complicated to defend the 'potentiality' points.

So if you want to defend your point we can go deeper into it.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Well, you have to understand that different people have different ideas of "harm to society". Infringing on their bodily Autonomy is literally harm to society from the pov of people that dosen't want to get vaccinated. 

Yeah it can be interpreted as harm for them, but what i am talking about is not up for interpretation it is objectively harmful for humans. And one really fundamental distinction between these two, that one is infectious the other one is not. What i am talking about can be tangibly measured.

Also when it comes to these kind of debates we can weight which harm is worse than the other one. Because they don't hold the same weight.

If you want to defend this point this is going to be another hard one. Because if you want a society where you don't want to infring on anyone just because what if they will get angry or what if they will interpret it as harm, then this argument could be made to defend any immoral points.

We can strectch your infrigement argument very very far, and thats the problem. For example if i wanted to use your argument, then we shouldn't infringe upon pedohiles by protecting children with laws, because it might upset the pedo-s or they might interpret it as harmful. The same could be made for psychopaths and people who actually want to murder people who are already born.

Or if you say thats not relevant, because those two example are not directly 100% related to the "my body my choice" argument, then regarding to how to weight if my or your argument make more sense, we can weight the harm.

 

Regarding to the 'my body my choice' one, some consequences are:

• Spreading the virus faster, so killing some people
• flooding hospitals with people
• because more people catch the virus, there are more people who can't go to work, so they can't earn money, the companies are losing more workers so it has measurable damage on the incomes on both sides

And we can compare it to mine, where we basically have angry people, who don't want to get infringed upon, and a very small number of people with some side effects 

So far it seems more damage on society if we want to use your argument and morality.

 

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

It clearly does in the case of abortion.

Depending on your morality, and depends on in what stage we are talking about abortion.

1 hour ago, Bobby_2021 said:

To elaborate the case of vaccines, those people at the risk of flooding the hospitals could have been advised to self isolate, since going out is going to spread the disease anyway. Despite that the government choose to violate bodily Autonomy, which is still justified according to you.

I don't really want to make this thread to a covid19 debate, because we already have a few of them and most of my arguments are made there regarding this vaccine topic.

You can advice people "to just stay home" and it can help, but people must work and you can't just shot down companies forever. I don't think i need to justify why it would be horrible if everything would be shut down for a few month just because you want people totally isolated.

Also i could argue, that forceing people to stay home for x amount of time would be a bigger violation on ther autonomy.

If we are talking about not total isolation, then we are still talking about spreading, and people who are working can bring back the virus. So this talking point is not above my argument "which violates bodily autonomy" according to you.

So the diesase still would have been spread really fast, and those who refused to take the vaccine made the spreading faster, infected more people so we are going back to the hospital argument, that because of these "my body my choice" people, people flooded hospitals even more.

 

Edited May 5, 2022 by zurew

[zurew]

34 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

If you go too far with "where to draw line?", then you won't even be able to definite what a human is, which will deem the whole conversation as frivolous, since muder doesn't really exist as well.

When we are talking about abortion its a moral issue so its a philosophical argument in the firstplace, we aren't talking about what exist from the absolute pov. Its all relative of course, but its still a morality issue, and lot of people care about it , so we need to justify or question things using philosophy.

We can define what a human is if we want to make arguments in favour or not in favour or abortion. Its all about justification. But defining what a human is, or from where do you call a living creature a human is an essential point to every abortion debate. If we don't define what a human is ,then we will have a debate that will become loosey-goosey and won't have any hard foundation.

 

Once a definition is made,  arguments and justifications can be made. The question is how far you can justify being totally against abortion and for what cost.

Also its interesting to see that a lot of people who are completely against abortion, and talking about the potentiality of things, often don't take into account how real world works and in what horrible circumstances and enviroment can a child born into. But it should be part of defending the potentiality, because if that poor child comes from a single mother household who were raped and who is really poor etcetc. Then its really tough to justify such things.

Edited May 5, 2022 by zurew

[Loba]

I'm pro-life, except when it consists of the baby or mother being born severely disabled, or the mother has complications.  I think we need better sex education in schools, and free contraceptives for women.  This would drastically help.  There's a middle ground to all of this and it involves keeping people informed.

 

[puporing]

I'm with Marianne on this. Whether or not someone's pro-life is their personal choice and it should not be forced on others who aren't in agreement.

People who want to have a say in someone else's life better be ready to take responsibility for that say or it's just hypocrisy and control.

Edited May 5, 2022 by puporing

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, puporing said:

I'm with Marrianne on this. Whether or not someone's pro-life is their personal choice and it should not be forced on others who aren't in agreement.

This basically means pro abortion, because that allows both.

Pro life people (mostly stage blue people) will have a lot of problem regarding to the video that you mentioned, but i am pro abortion as well. I want women to have more choice not less.

Edited May 5, 2022 by zurew

[puporing]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

This basically means pro abortion, because that allows both.

Yes, and??

[zurew]

1 minute ago, puporing said:

Yes, and??

Nothing, just summed it up.

[puporing]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

Pro life people (mostly stage blue people) will have a lot of problem regarding to the video that you mentioned, but i am pro abortion as well. I want women to have more choice not less.

Maybe they should look into why they care so much about other people's life. Are these people ready to adopt the said child? Most likely not. It's just control and attack on women's liberty.

[Loba]

If anyone here understood how reincarnation works, how souls work - that they exist - you'd think twice about pro-abortion.
What we need are better services for mothers and children, better sex education, free contraceptives and day-after pills.

It is your body, but the baby is also a living human being, and such decisions need to be well thought out.