What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

NorvilleBarnes

NorvilleBarnes

Footballguy
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?

 
I see plenty here choosing when "my body, my choice" should apply, which I find comical and blatantly hypocritical, but to the question above...no, I haven't changed my views.  If people want to get a shot get the shot.  If they don't, don't.  If people want to get an abortion, do it.  If not, don't.  In both situations I would strongly counsel in a particular direction (away from choices harming/potentially harming others), but I understand it's ultimately the individual's choice.  

 
The Commish said:
I see plenty here choosing when "my body, my choice" should apply, which I find comical and blatantly hypocritical, but to the question above...no, I haven't changed my views.  If people want to get a shot get the shot.  If they don't, don't.  If people want to get an abortion, do it.  If not, don't.  In both situations I would strongly counsel in a particular direction (away from choices harming/potentially harming others), but I understand it's ultimately the individual's choice.  
Click to expand...
This.

 
I strongly prefer an individual make an alternate choice to an abortion, but I don't support a law banning abortions. Since this is my stance, I am okay with the government providing limited subsidies to unexpecting mothers-to-be to help raise the child and setting up reasonable laws that rationally restrict the ease and swiftness at which an abortion can be gotten (though, I do think a lot of the southern states' attempts at this have gone too far). 

I strongly prefer an individual get vaccinated, but I don't support a law requiring all individuals get vaccinated. Since this is my stance, I am okay with the government providing incentives and benefits to those who choose to get vaccinated and setting up reasonable laws that rationally restrict an unvaccinated person's access to things such as restaurants, government buildings, etc. and/or require masks be worn in certain situations. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm pro-choice and pro-vaccine.  I'm opposed to vaccine mandates for everyone, in favor of vaccine mandates by private companies, military schools, etc. 

I could envision a scenario though where I would be ok with an across the board mandate if the only other option is a "Zombie apocalypse" outcome.

 
Zow said:
I strongly prefer an individual make an alternate choice to an abortion, but I don't support a law banning abortions. Since this is my stance, I am okay with the government providing limiting subsidies to unexpecting mothers-to-be to help raise the child and setting up reasonable laws that rationally restrict the ease and swiftness at which an abortion can be gotten (though, I do think a lot of the southern states' attempts at this have gone too far). 

I strongly prefer an individual get vaccinated, but I don't support a law requiring all individuals get vaccinated. Since this is my stance, I am okay with the government providing incentives and benefits to those who choose to get vaccinated and setting up reasonable laws that rationally restrict an unvaccinated person's access to things such as restaurants, government buildings, etc. and/or require masks be worn in certain situations. 
Click to expand...
I would have typed something like this after coffee, probably not as well.

 
cant believe how quickly y'all got the world to consider driving on the left side of the road a matter of moral choice. goodonya -

ETA: btw, dont bother - i aint arguing this w anyone

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The General said:
38 minutes ago, Zow said:
I strongly prefer an individual make an alternate choice to an abortion, but I don't support a law banning abortions. Since this is my stance, I am okay with the government providing limiting subsidies to unexpecting mothers-to-be to help raise the child and setting up reasonable laws that rationally restrict the ease and swiftness at which an abortion can be gotten (though, I do think a lot of the southern states' attempts at this have gone too far). 

I strongly prefer an individual get vaccinated, but I don't support a law requiring all individuals get vaccinated. Since this is my stance, I am okay with the government providing incentives and benefits to those who choose to get vaccinated and setting up reasonable laws that rationally restrict an unvaccinated person's access to things such as restaurants, government buildings, etc. and/or require masks be worn in certain situations. 
Expand  
Click to expand...
I would have typed something like this after coffee, probably not as well.
Click to expand...
I could’ve stayed up all night at a Starbucks pounding triple espressos and not laid out my argument this well.   It’s almost like Zow argues professionally for a living or something.  

 
No change.  We still have a world population problem.  Pro-Choice for both falls in line with addressing that problem.  

 
Still -  Pro-Choice/Pro "Vaccination Mandates should be in the ammo box of the Government to be used if needed". I'm not sure COVID requires a mandate....but I think one would be a damned fool if they were against vaccines for Smallpox/Polio or other more nefarious health issues. 

 
The Commish said:
I see plenty here choosing when "my body, my choice" should apply, which I find comical and blatantly hypocritical, but to the question above...no, I haven't changed my views.  If people want to get a shot get the shot.  If they don't, don't.  If people want to get an abortion, do it.  If not, don't.  In both situations I would strongly counsel in a particular direction (away from choices harming/potentially harming others), but I understand it's ultimately the individual's choice.  
Click to expand...


Could you imagine an employer having an abortion mandate?  

 
The General said:
Probably could ask should people be allowed to do any drug they want to this convo.
Click to expand...


I know in here in Philly we almost had safe-injection sites for heroin, think the site fell through.  But if you can boot heroin, I don't think the authorities really cares if you smoke a joint or sniff a line. 

 
Snotbubbles said:
I know in here in Philly we almost had safe-injection sites for heroin, think the site fell through.  But if you can boot heroin, I don't think the authorities really cares if you smoke a joint or sniff a line. 
Click to expand...
That coming from a guy that lives where you have to have more than an ounce of heroin on you before they will even arrest you and they are pushing for safe injection sites.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles said:
Could you imagine an employer having an abortion mandate?  
Click to expand...
Could I imagine it?  Of course.  It wouldn't go well for them.  The market and society as a whole would probably destroy them.  Still have no problem with a company choosing to do that if they dare.  That's their choice.

 
The Commish said:
I see plenty here choosing when "my body, my choice" should apply, which I find comical and blatantly hypocritical, but to the question above...no, I haven't changed my views.  If people want to get a shot get the shot.  If they don't, don't.  If people want to get an abortion, do it.  If not, don't.  In both situations I would strongly counsel in a particular direction (away from choices harming/potentially harming others), but I understand it's ultimately the individual's choice.  
Click to expand...
This

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
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?
Click to expand...


I think its ignorant to conflate the two, especially using the "my body my choice" cliche. As you say, the jargon may have some overlap, but the issues are completely different and its easy to support a position on either side of either argument without being inconsistent.  Same when people try to bring the death penalty into the mix - its not a matter of being "pro life."  To answer the question, I have not changed my view on one, based on my view of the other.

 
Abortion - I think wanting to reduce the number of abortions performed to near zero can be argued as a legitimate state interest.  The interest is less obvious and direct than some would argue, but the  indirect benefits that flow from addressing the root causes that drive up demand for abortion in the first place are good for the state.  Sadly the "Pro Life" movement tend to oppose the policies that would create such benefits.  The things that they do support are ineffective and even counterproductive to goals of fewer abortions.   So I cannot support "hand washing" pointless abortion bans and regulation.  Covid did not change this.

Vaccination -   I think the legitimate state interest of a vaccinated population is clearly obvious and direct.  That being said I don't see how this nation would ever put enough teeth into a mandate to make it effective and not also be counter productive.  (Kind of why abortion bans and regulations will never be harsh enough to reduce demand and willingness to supply.)

I don't think there is any inconsistency here.  We should create policies that can effectively pursue our goals rather than symbolically "wash our hands" of the problems.  Abortion bans and vaccine mandates would fail.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Females should be able to decide on abortions, although I am not a fan of late term abortion.   The rest of the population should also be able to decide what they deem is right for their own bodies.  I took the vaccine myself but do not judge those who do not want it.

I am a leBron James fan..should I not like him anymore because he did not vax?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
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?
Click to expand...


It hasn't, but that's because while I think the government has the power to enforce lockdowns and restrict certain events to only vaccinated people, I don't think the government has the right to physically violate your person by giving you a vaccination you have not consented to.

And the arguments are certainly related to abortion arguments, because the precedents that led to Roe v. Wade were about precisely that type of issue.  The limitations of government's ability to intrude upon a person's body even if the intrusion was not technically a "search or seizure."

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
It hasn't, but that's because while I think the government has the power to enforce lockdowns and restrict certain events to only vaccinated people, I don't think the government has the right to physically violate your person by giving you a vaccination you have not consented to.

And the arguments are certainly related to abortion arguments, because the precedents that led to Roe v. Wade were about precisely that type of issue.  The limitations of government's ability to intrude upon a person's body even if the intrusion was not technically a "search or seizure."
Click to expand...


Hey Ramsay, I agree with part of what you're saying, but think you might be looking at it too much within penumbral jurisprudence doctrine. It is related, but not determinative. You're advancing too narrow of an argument. He asked whether you were pro-choice or pro-life still. There are plenty of pro-choice and pro-life positions that don't focus on Roe v. Wade precedent, if you know what I'm saying. For example, I'm pro-choice and think the case was wrongly decided.

Because it might be a different issue. It just happened that the government used search, seizure, and privacy as the buffer against legislative impulses in the Roe case. That does not preclude us from using differing reasoning to reach our pro-choice positions.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
But it's still a good point you make, and a useful tool to use when thinking about the issue.

I'm just saying think of it more as a philosopher than a 1A or penumbral doctrine lawyer.

 
The only point I was trying to make is that we have a much longer line of precedent looking at penumbral fourth amendment issues arising out of the vaccination context than we do arising out of the contraception context.  The fist vaccine mandate case to reach the Supreme Court was in 1905.

And if your argument against Roe and Casey is that you reject a penumbral analysis of the Fourth Amendment, then you kind of logically have to believe that the Fourth Amendment wouldn't prevent the government from vaccinating your kids without your consent.  Because that's neither a search nor a seizure.

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

 
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. 

 
Max Power said:
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. 
Click to expand...
This was brought up in another thread and the part that comes next to me is important, it is being left off this quote from Biden:

"This is not about freedom, or personal choice,” Biden said at one point. “It’s about protecting yourself and those around you — the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love … We cannot allow these actions to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part, who want to get back to life as normal.”

If you believe that a higher number of vaxed people will lower infections then this is what needs to happen to return to normal.

 
The General said:
This was brought up in another thread and the part that comes next to me is important, it is being left off this quote from Biden:

"This is not about freedom, or personal choice,” Biden said at one point. “It’s about protecting yourself and those around you — the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love … We cannot allow these actions to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part, who want to get back to life as normal.”

If you believe that a higher number of vaxed people will lower infections then this is what needs to happen to return to normal.
Click to expand...
Yes, we know.  The president believes that it's okay to violate a person's bodily autonomy for the greater good.

As a pro-lifer, I agree.

 
No change. Unrelated topics that liberals are trying to make comparisons to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Yes, we know.  The president believes that it's okay to violate a person's bodily autonomy for the greater good.

As a pro-lifer, I agree.
Click to expand...
If you want to have that discussion that's fine. I don't see a woman being allowed to have an abortion versus someone choosing to not take a vax and then having to take a nasal swab test to go work in their cube as the same.

Regardless, leaving that language off the Biden quote is being done with a purpose it seems to me.

 
Its never been my body my choice for abortion - that's something told to people to get them to believe something. its also never been my body my choice in vaccinations because we all got them as kids before we could give personal consent to have them

maybe people finally understand those differences now .... I stopped being pro-abortion in 1995 when I was challenged on why I believed it should be allowed

the problem is if we allow the Fed Govt to mandate a shot now, we're going to have to accept the Fed Govt doing it later too for whatever other reason

and if ya'll are good with that, remember in 2025 when there is a Republican President like Trump again, ya'll are going to have to suck it up and let the Fed Govt make personal medical choices for you or they can keep you from getting a job, being free etc

many called Trump a dictator - Biden literally is trying to be 

 
The General said:
This was brought up in another thread and the part that comes next to me is important, it is being left off this quote from Biden:

"This is not about freedom, or personal choice,” Biden said at one point. “It’s about protecting yourself and those around you — the people you work with, the people you care about, the people you love … We cannot allow these actions to stand in the way of protecting the large majority of Americans who have done their part, who want to get back to life as normal.”

If you believe that a higher number of vaxed people will lower infections then this is what needs to happen to return to normal.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that.  But the reason for doing something shouldn't justify the government doing it. 

The government shouldn't stop abortions because people don't want babies to die. 

 
The General said:
If you want to have that discussion that's fine. I don't see a woman being allowed to have an abortion versus someone choosing to not take a vax and then having to take a nasal swab test to go work in their cube as the same.
Click to expand...
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.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
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.  
Click to expand...
People in this case are allowed outs - one being a nasal swab test. I can separate this from establishing personhood to a fetus.

 
Max Power said:
I don't believe that.  But the reason for doing something shouldn't justify the government doing it. 

The government shouldn't stop abortions because people don't want babies to die. 
Click to expand...
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. 

 
The Z Machine said:
Interesting question: is pregnancy is a communicable condition?
Click to expand...
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.)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Democrats Transition From Complacent 'Pro-Choice' To No Limit Pro Abortion Extremists? (6/28/22 21:38 PST)
Replies
11
Views
463
jon_mx
J
JAA
  • Poll
Should employers require their workers be COVID vaccinated or be fired?
2 3
Replies
134
Views
3K
Terminalxylem
Terminalxylem
GordonGekko
The Official "Political Tweets That REALLY Didn't Age Well" Thread (10/15/22 1:23 PST)
Replies
22
Views
826
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top