1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Abortion and Vaccines

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1915
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 July 2021 09:01
 

If the government can decide for you whether or not you’re allowed to have an abortion, then it also has the right to mandate whether or not you get a vaccine.

Vaccines are less dangerous that a pregnancy.
Vaccine procedures are cheaper and faster than any single appointment associated with a pregnancy, let alone all of them combined.
Vaccines have a far less dramatic impact on the body than pregnancy.
If the government has the right to mandate medical choices for women, then it has the right to make medical choices for all citizens.
Vaccines save lives, and if the goal of prohibiting abortion is to save lives, vaccines meet that requirement too.

Am I missing anything about the incongruency of the conservative stance on these two issues?

 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  10767
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
23 July 2021 11:56
 

I can’t/won’t argue with that reasoning.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  8263
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 July 2021 12:06
 

If a bunch of old white dudes are permitted litigate reproductive controls for women, it stands to reason that those old white dudes can also litigate the immunity rights for everyone…

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1915
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 July 2021 13:21
 

From a system/legal standpoint, I do value the concept of freedom and choice, and so for both issues… as much as I want all people to be vaccinated, I do not support it as a mandatory policy.  Which also conforms to my stance on abortion.  Regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, I don’t support the government mandating a policy about it.

 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  8263
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
23 July 2021 14:40
 
weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 01:21 PM

From a system/legal standpoint, I do value the concept of freedom and choice, and so for both issues… as much as I want all people to be vaccinated, I do not support it as a mandatory policy.  Which also conforms to my stance on abortion.  Regardless of my personal feelings on the matter, I don’t support the government mandating a policy about it.

I, too, am a ‘freedom of choice’ advocate.  Reproduction and Medical decisions are personal and private, and should not be anyone’s business outside of close family or those the decision-maker chooses to share with.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1915
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 July 2021 15:24
 

Yeah, it just struck me as an extremely dissonant stance to be holding on these two issues.  In one, it’s okay that the government is meddling in our affairs, but in this other, extremely similar situation (medical choices about things being put in our bodies), a group of people holds a diametrically opposed view.

I think it underlines the fact that their views on either is not based on the reasons that they give.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7388
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
23 July 2021 18:00
 

The obvious difference is that a mandate against abortion would be proscriptive, whereas a mandate requiring vaccination would be prescriptive. In general I think that prescriptive mandates are more onerous than proscriptive ones.

Before you start making comparisons to things like driver’s insurance mandates, keep in mind that driver’s insurance is only mandated in order to drive on public roads. You could view this as “conditionally prescriptive,” but I think it’s more accurate to think of it as proscriptive in the sense that you’re proscribed from driving on public roads without insurance.

I think proscribing participation in certain public activities without being vaccinated (the so-called “vaccination passport”) would be a better solution than a prescriptive mandate for everyone.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1915
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
23 July 2021 21:55
 

I don’t see how whether something is prescriptive or proscriptive to be a substantial enough difference.  The government routinely does both, and there are plenty of conservative beliefs that fall under either category, which means that this difference again does not gives us a substantial reason for preferring one but not the other.  In fact, many abortion restrictions are prescriptive, such as all of those that dictate when a doctor must show women certain information.

In addition, requiring someone to undergo a pregnancy (which not allowing an abortion does), necessitates certain actions and behaviors, one of which is carrying the pregnancy to term.

Because of this, sure, there’s a very minute difference, but again we don’t even have to outside the topic to other issues to find that this distinction does not support why they would prefer one over the other.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  724
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
24 July 2021 09:00
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 July 2021 06:00 PM

The obvious difference is that a mandate against abortion would be proscriptive, whereas a mandate requiring vaccination would be prescriptive. In general I think that prescriptive mandates are more onerous than proscriptive ones.

Before you start making comparisons to things like driver’s insurance mandates, keep in mind that driver’s insurance is only mandated in order to drive on public roads. You could view this as “conditionally prescriptive,” but I think it’s more accurate to think of it as proscriptive in the sense that you’re proscribed from driving on public roads without insurance.

I think proscribing participation in certain public activities without being vaccinated (the so-called “vaccination passport”) would be a better solution than a prescriptive mandate for everyone.

Nonsense.  The pregnancy is an issue that only affects the woman (or maybe the father, but he should have obtained the woman’s consent to bear the child before doing anything that might cause pregnancy if he wanted a child).  The vaccine, on the other hand, can prevent you from spreading the disease to others. 

I’m actually with you, one shouldn’t require vaccinations. Perhaps we should forbid most public activities if you are a vaccine candidate but refuse to take it.  However, I don’t think proscriptive vs prescriptive is a good argument.  The issue is how much harm you might do to others.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1915
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
24 July 2021 19:23
 
lynmc - 24 July 2021 09:00 AM

The issue is how much harm you might do to others.

Overall in analysis, I don’t entirely disagree.  The main point of the thread was diagnosing an inconsistency in a belief structure.  Very similar scenarios: individuals making medical decisions about their own bodies.  Yet, one side of the debate on these issues is using contradictory arguments in order to hold both beliefs simultaneously.

(directed at the thread in general)
And I’m well aware that there are explanations for why these beliefs are currently existing simultaneously (government controlling abortions good, government controlling vaccines bad), but these explanations are not related to the structure of the beliefs and arguments presented for them.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7388
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
25 July 2021 21:03
 
weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 09:55 PM

I don’t see how whether something is prescriptive or proscriptive to be a substantial enough difference.  The government routinely does both…

Can you give examples of some prescriptive mandates? There’s income tax, of course, and there used to be the individual health insurance mandate (thank you Trump for ditching that piece of shit!), but what others? And how frequently does the government have to impose them in order to justify your hyperbolic, “routinely does both” claim?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7388
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
25 July 2021 21:10
 
lynmc - 24 July 2021 09:00 AM

Nonsense.  The pregnancy is an issue that only affects the woman (or maybe the father, but he should have obtained the woman’s consent to bear the child before doing anything that might cause pregnancy if he wanted a child).

That argument only begs the question of whether abortion harms the unborn child. Of course, you don’t think so…

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1915
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
25 July 2021 21:11
 

Here’s a law in Kentucky that requires a doctor to shove something inside women unnecessarily.

I literally don’t even have to leave the topic of abortion to find you an example.  And it’s an example supported by conservatives… since liberals certainly didn’t pass that law.  The law definitely prescribes what the doctor has to do in that situation.

It’s funny to me that a law that actually compelled speech also seemed to escape Mr Icehorse’s (rip) attention.

[ Edited: 25 July 2021 21:13 by weird buffalo]
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  724
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
26 July 2021 09:58
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 July 2021 09:10 PM
lynmc - 24 July 2021 09:00 AM

Nonsense.  The pregnancy is an issue that only affects the woman (or maybe the father, but he should have obtained the woman’s consent to bear the child before doing anything that might cause pregnancy if he wanted a child).

That argument only begs the question of whether abortion harms the unborn child. Of course, you don’t think so…

A fetus isn’t a child.  Before a certain number of weeks, it isn’t anything differentiate it as a “human being” from other animals, that is, thinking, having imagination, independent action, and so on.  A child is defined as a human being between the ages of birth and puberty.

But I guess you think women should be required against their will to provide their wombs as incubators until such time as the fetus can become a viable child, despite the inherent danger of doing so.

Back to weird’s post, it doesn’t seem that important whether the government interference in people’s lives is prescriptive or proscriptive.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7388
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 July 2021 10:13
 
weird buffalo - 25 July 2021 09:11 PM

Here’s a law in Kentucky that requires a doctor to shove something inside women unnecessarily.

I literally don’t even have to leave the topic of abortion to find you an example.  And it’s an example supported by conservatives… since liberals certainly didn’t pass that law.  The law definitely prescribes what the doctor has to do in that situation.

It’s funny to me that a law that actually compelled speech also seemed to escape Mr Icehorse’s (rip) attention.

No, this law proscribes performing the abortion without the “informed consent” procedures. It’s an onerous law, to be sure—I’m disappointed that the Court let it stand—but it’s not an example of a prescriptive mandate.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7388
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 July 2021 10:31
 
lynmc - 26 July 2021 09:58 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 July 2021 09:10 PM
lynmc - 24 July 2021 09:00 AM

Nonsense.  The pregnancy is an issue that only affects the woman (or maybe the father, but he should have obtained the woman’s consent to bear the child before doing anything that might cause pregnancy if he wanted a child).

That argument only begs the question of whether abortion harms the unborn child. Of course, you don’t think so…

A fetus isn’t a child.  Before a certain number of weeks, it isn’t anything differentiate it as a “human being” from other animals, that is, thinking, having imagination, independent action, and so on.  A child is defined as a human being between the ages of birth and puberty.

But I guess you think women should be required against their will to provide their wombs as incubators until such time as the fetus can become a viable child, despite the inherent danger of doing so.

Back to weird’s post, it doesn’t seem that important whether the government interference in people’s lives is prescriptive or proscriptive.

The argument that the fetus/unborn child doesn’t incur any harm because it doesn’t meet your definition of things that can incur harm is just as one-sided and ignorant as the argument that the woman’s right to liberty isn’t violated or doesn’t matter when we proscribe her from receiving an abortion. You and your counterparts are equally wrong.

I still say that prescriptive mandates are more intrusive—hence more onerous—than proscriptive mandates. And I think the fact that proscriptive mandates are “routine,” but prescriptive mandates are few and far between reflects a consensus on that position. Just look at this thread: people have gone out of their way to express opposition to a prescriptive vaccination mandate. Why? Because the difference between not allowing people to do X and forcing them to do X is important.

 
 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›