Has Covid changed your Pro Life or Pro Choice position? (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

You may believe that and there may be some merit to saying "F this" and make it a free for all - let people get sick. 

Businesses however and a large percentage of the population are not going to go for this. 

Hasn't it always been if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere?  Nothing is stopping the major companies from implementing covid rules.  If that's the company someone wants to work for, go ahead.  Just don't force companies and employees to comply with unwanted mandates.

 

[dkp993]

So if businesses now have the right to mandate vaccines should they have the right to mandate a pregnant woman must keep her baby?  I’m firmly pro-choice but the slippery slope (or Pandora’s box if one prefers) that the POTUS just put us on is perilous to say the least, IMO.  

 

[The General]

It's a good thing there are no issues with bodily autonomy and person privacy with nasal swab tests.

What problems are you alluding to?

 

[Thunderlips]

Someone pointed out the irony between these two positions.

Kamala Harris was at a Reproductive Rights events and made these comments...

“When people are able to make choices without government interference for themselves … we are a stronger society”

“And, needless to say, the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision; it is their body.

And no legislative institutions have the right to circumvent the Constitution of the United States in an attempt to interfere with, much less to prevent, a woman to make those decisions.”

Later that day Joe Biden leads off with...

"This is not about freedom or personal choice. It's about protecting yourself and those around you, the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love. My job as president is to protect all Americans"

So should the government be involved in making healthcare decisions for Americans?  These two aren't on the same page. 

Sure; if there's enough of a danger to the American way of life.  To blanket condemn the idea that US Government could mandate vaccines is the height of foolishness.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What problems are you alluding to?

Being subjected to a medical test that I'd prefer not to take.

 

[The General]

Hasn't it always been if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere?  Nothing is stopping the major companies from implementing covid rules.  If that's the company someone wants to work for, go ahead.  Just don't force companies and employees to comply with unwanted mandates.

In the case of Federal employees this becomes a bit trickier. If you don't want to comply you take a test. These mandate are welcome, by what, half the people? 

 

[Max Power]

Sure; if there's enough of a danger to the American way of life.  To blanket condemn the idea that US Government could mandate vaccines is the height of foolishness.  

If it was such a danger to us the government wouldn't have to. 

 

[Thunderlips]

If it was such a danger to us the government wouldn't have to. 

I agree with that in theory.  I don't agree with that in practicality...and at that point, there would have to be government intervention.  Even smallpox needed government intervention.

 

[The General]

Being subjected to a medical test that I'd prefer not to take.

There's not a perfect solution here for people that have to go to work inside. From just a nuts and bolts aspect these tests are not intrusive. In this circumstance it is being used as a tool to determine if you will be spreading covid in your workplace. Ultimately this is being used to get to a number of vaxed people so that we have infection numbers deemed "accpetable" and in turn see "normalcy" such as Denmark. Different situation, population, a million other factors but I believe this is the hope. 

Drawing parallels to abortion and introducing that into this convo is a bad example of the slippery slope argument to me. 

 

[Max Power]

In the case of Federal employees this becomes a bit trickier. If you don't want to comply you take a test. These mandate are welcome, by what, half the people? 

I'd say much much lower.  We still have to wear masks in federal buildings and we're not even doing that very well. Most people are over covid.  If you're unvaxed, thats on you at this point. 

I don't see a lot of support for these mandates.  Especially if they start to apply to boosters, which we can almost guarantee are coming. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

Actually, my position on pretty much everything has changed to allow for individual choice. While I can't imagine a scenario where I would choose personally to abort a pregnancy, I no longer feel that it's my responsibility to attempt to make that decision for others. 

And I think I've made myself pretty clear on how I feel about vaccine mandates.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

There's not a perfect solution here for people that have to go to work inside. From just a nuts and bolts aspect these tests are not intrusive. In this circumstance it is being used as a tool to determine if you will be spreading covid in your workplace. Ultimately this is being used to get to a number of vaxed people so that we have infection numbers deemed "accpetable" and in turn see "normalcy" such as Denmark. Different situation, population, a million other factors but I believe this is the hope. 

Drawing parallels to abortion and introducing that into this convo is a bad example of the slippery slope argument to me. 

There's no slippery slope or anything here.  I'm talking about one specific argument that people trot out to justify the pro-choice position.  It's a fine argument, as long as you're not also violating that same argument when it comes to vaccines.

You can't say "But vaccines are an exception because we're violating bodily autonomy for a really good reason."  Pro-lifers like me say the exact same thing.  

 

[The General]

I'd say much much lower.  We still have to wear masks in federal buildings and we're not even doing that very well. Most people are over covid.  If you're unvaxed, thats on you at this point. 

I don't see a lot of support for these mandates.  Especially if they start to apply to boosters, which we can almost guarantee are coming. 

The numbers I have seen in articles were like 60-40 in favor of. I didn't read the questions or how they were framed.

Personally, I am going to live my life using as much precautions as possible. I will travel, I will go out to eat, hang with friends, I'm not running out to watch a Seahawks game in person at the moment. I also understand governments and businesses will just look at case numbers and work off of this extremely cautiously. 

I want to try out the getting the vax number in our population to 70% or so. Lets give that a swing and see how it works.

 

[Max Power]

The numbers I have seen in articles were like 60-40 in favor of. I didn't read the questions or how they were framed.

Personally, I am going to live my life using as much precautions as possible. I will travel, I will go out to eat, hang with friends, I'm not running out to watch a Seahawks game in person at the moment. I also understand governments and businesses will just look at case numbers and work off of this extremely cautiously. 

I want to try out the getting the vax number in our population to 70% or so. Lets give that a swing and see how it works.

Just saying if we consider natural immunity along with the vaccine, we're at 70%. 

Not considering natural immunity in this whole process is another data point people have trouble wrapping their heads around. 

 

[The General]

There's no slippery slope or anything here.  I'm talking about specific argument that people trot out to justify the pro-choice position.  It's a fine argument, as long as you're not also violating that same argument when it comes to vaccines.

Make the case for me: telling someone they can have the option to not get a shot, keep their job (one that requires them to be in the office) but would have to take a nasal swab to enter the building versus this prolife issue. I'm not seeing it.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Make the case for me: telling someone they can have the option to not get a shot, keep their job (one that requires them to be in the office) but would have to take a nasal swab to enter the building versus this prolife issue. I'm not seeing it.

Some, but not all, people on the pro-choice side of the aisle argue that a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy swamps all other considerations.  Regardless of what we happen to think about the moral status of a fetus, it's her body so it's her decision.  (Or so the argument goes anyway).

If you take that argument seriously, you can't possibly support a vaccine mandate.  Your body, your choice.  If you think it's relevant to the discussion that a person's vaccination decision affects some other third party, then you have to grant pro-lifers that argument as well.  In other words, if it's okay to violate my bodily autonomy to protect the health of the guy who rings me up at the grocery store, then it's also okay to violate a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy to protect the health of her unborn child.  If your answer to that is that the unborn child doesn't have any rights worth protecting, then you're making a personhood argument, not a bodily autonomy argument.

This isn't about "If your position on abortion is X, then your position on vaccines must be Y."  It's that one particular argument against abortion bans also carries equal force against vaccine mandates.  If you're going to trot out that argument, you should apply it consistently.

 

[Dickies]

No.  I'm pro-life.  So vaccine mandates, while I don't like them, fall in line with my position on abortion mandates.  

Abortion mandates?

 

[Dickies]

It's been a few years since I got someone pregnant but I'm pretty sure she couldn't do it without me, so I did give her.....something.

(Trying to write that with no puns or innuendo was impossible.)

The jab?

 

[The General]

Some, but not all, people on the pro-choice side of the aisle argue that a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy swamps all other considerations.  Regardless of what we happen to think about the moral status of a fetus, it's her body so it's her decision.  (Or so the argument goes anyway).

If you take that argument seriously, you can't possibly support a vaccine mandate.  Your body, your choice.  If you think it's relevant to the discussion that a person's vaccination decision affects some other third party, then you have to grant pro-lifers that argument as well.  

This isn't about "If your position on abortion is X, then your position on vaccines must be Y."  It's that one particular argument against abortion bans also carries equal force against vaccine mandates.  If you're going to trot out that argument, you should apply it consistently.

People are being given allowances that don't require them to take the shot. Is there some equivalent for abortions?

 

[dkp993]

Some, but not all, people on the pro-choice side of the aisle argue that a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy swamps all other considerations.  Regardless of what we happen to think about the moral status of a fetus, it's her body so it's her decision.  (Or so the argument goes anyway).

If you take that argument seriously, you can't possibly support a vaccine mandate.  Your body, your choice.  If you think it's relevant to the discussion that a person's vaccination decision affects some other third party, then you have to grant pro-lifers that argument as well.  In other words, if it's okay to violate my bodily autonomy to protect the health of the guy who rings me up at the grocery store, then it's also okay to violate a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy to protect the health of her unborn child.  If your answer to that is that the unborn child doesn't have any rights worth protecting, then you're making a personhood argument, not a bodily autonomy argument.

This isn't about "If your position on abortion is X, then your position on vaccines must be Y."  It's that one particular argument against abortion bans also carries equal force against vaccine mandates.  If you're going to trot out that argument, you should apply it consistently.

While we are on different sides of the abortion rights decision I completely agree with your arguments and reasoning.  

 

[Max Power]

People are being given allowances that don't require them to take the shot. Is there some equivalent for abortions?

like having the baby?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Abortion mandates?

Yes, probably could have better explained.  I believe that people's health decisions, when they can potentially do harm to others should be able to be mandated under public safety exemptions.  I don't like being mandated, but it doesn't change my position on vaccines or telling women they can't get abortions.

 

[The General]

like having the baby?

Yes. That seems more complex an issue and final than someone determining they would rather get a daily nasal swab to keep their office job.

 

[Max Power]

Yes. That seems more complex an issue and final than someone determining they would rather get a daily nasal swab to keep their office job.

They could avoid getting pregnant

 

[The General]

They could avoid getting pregnant

There is that.

 

[Jayrod]

I'm pro-life and pro-vaccine, but anti-vaccine-mandate.

I believe in berating fools into compliance rather than forcing them into compliance through threatening of job loss.

That said, I also believe that abortion is a form of murder and should be outlawed.

This is very much apples and oranges.

 

[greenmountaingoat]

I keep hearing very similar arguments (like "my body my choice") used on one topic like vax mandates but reversed on the other topic. They are obviously two very different topics - but some of the reasoning behind supporting or opposing each extends some of the same logic.

Has anyone here modified their views on one based on their arguments for the other?

The only common logic is that personal freedom is important. My body, my choice or mandates is not binary to me. I could probably earn another trip to the penalty box citing examples of things that would be silly to be pro-choice or pro mandate on.

 

[dancer]

I would rearrange the discussion a little and compare getting the vaccine to using proper birth control

Government should do what it can to ensure people are able to get the needed information, the information they need to make responsible choices

If after having the proper information, someone chooses to be irresponsible (e.g., don't get vaccine, don't use birth control) and an unwanted outcome happens (gets sick from COVID, gets unwanted pregnancy) then they should have to deal with the consequences (no medical treatment for COVID, no abortion allowed)

Sometimes it isn't just "being irresponsible" but something else that caused the adverse result (e.g., couldn't get vaccine due to medical condition or age, got vaccine but had breakthrough infection, used birth control but pregnant anyway, chose to get pregnant but dangerous medical issue, pregnant by rape) - in those cases we should help them (provide medical treatment for COVID, allow abortion)

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

My pro-choice position was less about personal autonomy and more about the intrusiveness of enforcement, do the analogy really fails there. 

I'm pro-choice and pro-vaccine mandates. I agree that if you're trying to draw bright lines, it's impossible to be both. But as rock says, the level of intrusiveness is key IMO. Being forced to carry a baby to term is a way bigger deal than getting a shot (as seen by the fact that we've had vaccine mandates since forever). 

[ETA: I realized that last bit wasn't a particularly strong argument in this case, since we've had women forced to carry fetuses to term for most of human history as well, and for most of that time it was as non-controversial as vaccines. I still think the historical precedent supports the general idea of vaccine mandates, just not relative to abortion.]

I also agree that if you view abortion as murder then the principle of the state acting to preserve life should hold true across both cases. Then again, if you view abortion as murder -- that is to say, if you view removing a 10-week-old fetus as the exact same thing as killing a 10-year-old child -- I don't see how you can possibly be pro-choice.

 

[rockaction]

My pro-choice position was less about personal autonomy and more about the intrusiveness of enforcement, so the analogy really fails there. 

These two things aren't the same, but they're identical as far as the "bodily autonomy" argument goes.  Pro-lifers and supporters of vaccine mandates both agree that there are some circumstances in which another person's right to life outweighs your bodily autonomy.  It would be easy to justify a pro-choice position by denying personhood to the fetus, for example, but you can't really appeal to one's bodily autonomy anymore if you're cool with having that overridden for vaccines.  

The methodology of enforcement is clearly enough of an issue -- and it has been strangely confirmed after my original posting here -- to establish a pro-choice position and make it a tenable one while at the same time requiring a vaccination mandate. One sees that the intimate level into which the realm of enforcement runs is not as great for showing a vaccination card from a publicly administered vaccination site than the level of intrusion and questionable judicial methods that the current Texas law, or other laws that are pro-life, designates as its or their enforcement mechanisms.

I don't want it to seem like I'm too smart or prescient (though I happen to have been prescient in this case) or too self back-patting, so I'll intone that the reason I'm pro-choice is because a commenter on another web site said this to me and others once: "Look, you don't trust the government about really anything, nor are you in favor of its drug war and its enforcement mechanisms regarding drugs on down to traffic law collections. You think it's going to be any different with abortion enforcement mechanisms?" It's what led me to believe that even if I am pro-life, the remedy to what I believe is the unjust killing of a fetus is not through government intervention and action.

I'll use an analogy. When courts see a tort before them, they ask what remedy can the court provide. Otherwise, they defer to the machinations of society. If no remedy is possible, then the action or occurence becomes a non-justiciable event. It's like an accidental death. There is no remedy that humans can conceive of that is not so intrusive as to be life-negating itself. This is a problem that has vexed conservative thinkers since the nineties. Okay, pro-life. But how?

That's the question one needs to ask themselves. Vaccines have no such intimate issues at stake. There will be no cops going through your garbage inspecting miscarriage underwear. You get your vaccine, there is a record and a card.

That's the difference, man.

 

[rockaction]

I'm pro-choice and pro-vaccine mandates. I agree that if you're trying to draw bright lines, it's impossible to be both. But as rock says, the level of intrusiveness is key IMO. Being forced to carry a baby to term is a way bigger deal than getting a shot (as seen by the fact that we've had vaccine mandates since forever). 

I also agree that if you view abortion as murder then the principle of the state acting to preserve life should hold true across both cases. Then again, if you view abortion as murder -- that is to say, if you view removing a 10-week-old fetus as the exact same thing as killing a 10-year-old child -- I don't see how you can possibly be pro-choice.

Your reaction and quotation drew me here, and I was able to expound. Thanks, ignatius. I hope my explanation makes sense.

 

[LawFitz]

Vaccines have no such intimate issues at stake.

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data

As of last week - 14.5k dead; 18.5k PERMANENTLY disabled from the Covid vaxxes - that's US CDC reporting alone, and doesn't include even worse figures in the EU and similar data in AUS. And these figures are from a self-reporting system that the CDC acknowledges themselves, likely only captures 1-13% of actual adverse events!

I'd say the issues for the 33k (times X) families in this database are extremely intimate.

 

[The General]

https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data

As of last week - 14.5k dead; 18.5k PERMANENTLY disabled from the Covid vaxxes - that's US CDC reporting alone, and doesn't include even worse figures in the EU and similar data in AUS. And these figures are from a self-reporting system that the CDC acknowledges themselves, likely only captures 1-13% of actual adverse events!

I'd say the issues for the 33k (times X) families in this database are extremely intimate.

What is this? Where are they getting this information?

 

[LawFitz]

FTR, I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice. And firmly anti-vax-mandates of any kind. 

You body, your choice. My body, my choice. I've been speaking with a lot of very angry people lately from both sides of the vax-mandate issue. These are dangerous times, friends. We need to think very hard about the second-order effects of taking peoples' jobs away b/c many of you who are happy to do so, may not be so happy with the ultimate outcome of such policy in a country born of and cultured by free men.

 

[LawFitz]

What is this? Where are they getting this information?

CDC VAERS database.

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System

 

[The General]

CDC VAERS database.

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System

Who is confirming these death numbers? These are unverified, right?

 

[rockaction]

Yeah, no, I'm not having another vaccine debate. You're killing people. That is all.

 

[djmich]

Yeah, no, I'm not having another vaccine debate. You're killing people. That is all.

We are killing people by not forcing them to do something?

 

[The General]

CDC VAERS database.

Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System

From their site FAQ. You really shouldn't be posting this like fact.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Limitations of VAERS:

It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event

Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contains errors

Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events

Numbers of reports may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness

VAERS data cannot be used to determine rates of adverse events

 

[rockaction]

We are killing people by not forcing them to do something?

Pretty much, yes. People are dying because they're not being forced to be vaccinated. In fact, lots of people are dying because they're not forced to be vaccinated.

This doesn't sound like too hard of a statement to grasp. You can run with it.

This isn't like a "forced to be free" Rousseau paradox about abstract freedoms. This is quite simply stating that people are dying because they're not forced to get a life-saving procedure.

It's that easy.

 

[LawFitz]

Yeah, no, I'm not having another vaccine debate. You're killing people. That is all.

Many on our side think the exact same of you. This kind of rhetoric is how wars are started. Tread lightly out there in the real world with this accusation and your mandates.

 

[LawFitz]

From their site FAQ. You really shouldn't be posting this like fact.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Limitations of VAERS:

It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event

Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contains errors

Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events

Numbers of reports may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness

VAERS data cannot be used to determine rates of adverse events

I didn't say anything that wasn't factual.

FACT - there have been 14,506 reports of DEATH and 18,439 reports of PERMANENT DISABILITY to the CDC through Sept 9 from Covid vaxxes.

FACT - the CDC, prior to Covid, stated that due to the limited use and awareness of the VAERS database, only 1-13% of actual adverse events are reported to the system.

 

[rockaction]

Many on our side think the exact same of you. This kind of rhetoric is how wars are started. Tread lightly out there in the real world with this accusation and your mandates.

It's quite simple. Your side is wrong. Usually in history, there is a right side and a wrong side, especially when it comes to facts like science and health.

Your side is wrong. Accept it or don't at your own peril.

 

[djmich]

Pretty much, yes. People are dying because they're not being forced to be vaccinated. In fact, lots of people are dying because they're not forced to be vaccinated.

This doesn't sound like too hard of a statement to grasp. You can run with it.

This isn't like a "forced to be free" Rousseau paradox about abstract freedoms. This is quite simply stating that people are dying because they're not forced to get a life-saving procedure.

It's that easy.

Sure I know they’re dying rock, but that’s not what you said, you said we’re killing them.

I support 2A, am I killing people…because certainly there would be less dead without guns.  This can be extrapolated ad infinitum.

 

[rockaction]

Sure I know they’re dying rock, but that’s not what you said, you said we’re killing them.

I support 2A, am I killing people…because certainly there would be less dead without guns.  This can be extrapolated ad infinitum.

No, I never said that you were actively killing them unless you were spreading mis or dis-information like LawFitz was. I wasn't having another "factual" vaccination conversation. Misinformation is killing people, and I wish it would stop.

The mandates are resting upon a totally different thing.

 

[LawFitz]

No, I never said that you were actively killing them unless you were spreading mis or dis-information like LawFitz was. I wasn't having another "factual" vaccination conversation. Misinformation is killing people, and I wish it would stop.

The mandates are resting upon a totally different thing.

VAERS data is not mis-information.

Acting like VAERS data doesn't exist or shouldn't at all be considered is mis-information.

 

[The General]

I didn't say anything that wasn't factual.

FACT - there have been 14,506 reports of DEATH and 18,439 reports of PERMANENT DISABILITY to the CDC through Sept 9 from Covid vaxxes.

FACT - the CDC, prior to Covid, stated that due to the limited use and awareness of the VAERS database, only 1-13% of actual adverse events are reported to the system.

You said this  "As of last week - 14.5k dead; 18.5k PERMANENTLY disabled from the Covid vaxxes - that's US CDC reporting alone"

These are unverified reports, no? The CDC is not "reporting" this.

This method of reporting is not designed to detect if a vaccine caused an adverse event, is it?

If you don't think this is extremely purposefully misleading than I guess we disagree.

 

[LawFitz]

It's quite simple. Your side is wrong. Usually in history, there is a right side and a wrong side, especially when it comes to facts like science and health.

Your side is wrong. Accept it or don't at your own peril.

I hope and pray we are wrong. I'm just not ready to concede that your vax is safe for everyone, over an extended term, or that the benefits outweigh the risk for all peoples. There is plenty of evidence out there to suggest otherwise and leave room for on-going debate. Accept our right to choose our fate or not at your own peril. Be very careful of what happens if you take peoples freedoms and jobs away over this. 

 

[jps]

From their site FAQ. You really shouldn't be posting this like fact.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Limitations of VAERS:

It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event

Reports submitted to VAERS often lack details and sometimes contains errors

Serious adverse events are more likely to be reported than non-serious events

Numbers of reports may increase in response to media attention and increased public awareness

VAERS data cannot be used to determine rates of adverse events

These are the actual reports sent to the CDC from hospitals and Emergent care centers. These reports are mandated to be sent after adverse events.  These are all facts. Just not fully researched and investigated as to if it was the only cause or if it was a contributing cause, or just incidental to the event.   Similar to how all covid related positive tests and even covid deaths are reported, but not all researched and investigated.  But facts all the same. Not sure how you can accept one set of information but want to reject the other.  Unfortunately you seem to want to dismiss these CDC facts that run against the Vaccine mandate narrative that there is no risk or reason that someone might choose to not be vaccinated. 

 

[The General]

These are the actual reports sent to the CDC from hospitals and Emergent care centers. These reports are mandated to be sent after adverse events.  These are all facts. Just not fully researched and investigated as to if it was the only cause or if it was a contributing cause, or just incidental to the event.   Similar to how all covid related positive tests and even covid deaths are reported, but not all researched and investigated.  But facts all the same. Not sure how you can accept one set of information but want to reject the other.  Unfortunately you seem to want to dismiss these CDC facts that run against the Vaccine mandate narrative that there is no risk or reason that someone might choose to not be vaccinated. 

I can make a report right now and submit it. 

This is not intended to be passed off as "CDC reporting deaths due to Covid vaccination".

The CDC recommends Covid vaccines for anyone over the age of 12.

To the bolded - yes there could be errors in how Covid numbers are reported.