Bodily Autonomy: Abortions & Vaccines

[Bobby_2021]

I think you have taken it too personal. Better read my definitions I have already given.

This is not a moral claim or value system claim. 

I don't intend to continue the discussion since I am making the same point I have already made.

It is not my fault that lines do not exist in reality. I am not being vague. There is no boundary for being human. I am not being intangible with my claim.

But I will elaborate a few points later for the clarity on the topic since this is a public form and many people other than the two of us read this.

[zurew]

34 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

This is what I mean by sufficient potential. I have clearly defined everything that can be defined. 

Sperms do not have sufficient potential, unless interfered with.

So, correct me if i misunderstand your definition here.If i use this picture down below the "fertilized egg" would be sufficient potential for you or not?

 That would be basically the very first stage what you could call "sufficient human potential". 

If you don't agree with that please elaborate why.

If you say yes, then my question would be , how is that fertilized egg being in the mother's womb not meaning being interfered with? Because in my world that would mean interference, because it literally needs a very special environment to survive and to develop.

 

34 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Well I have never called anyone immoral on this forum. That is typical stage blue behaviour and it do not represent me. You putting words in my mouth and me having to defend claims I never even made is quite tiresome. 

You haven't exactly called anyone immoral, but you implied it. You can say, that i interpreted your message in the wrong way, but in most people's world allowing literal human murder would be immoral.

Don't get me wrong, i don't care either about any moral claims or justifications. BUT in this case in this context it is very different because it is a philosophical discussion, so we need to take it for that, not just for a normal conversation. Because this is about morality, and a moral issue.

If we have a philosophical discussion we need to have totally different standards and expectations, compared to having a normal discussion.

Or if you don't consider this a moral discussion, then why have it? Because i don't think that making any personal opinions about this can hold any value, especially if it can't be applied in a real world justice system.

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

14 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Isn't interpreting everything as relative falling into the same trap as pragmatism?

No

Quote

"Nothing matter because everything is relative."

So yeah do whatever you want. Nothing really matters and it if does it is always relative to something else. And that thing doesn't matter too. Nothing matters, just like the pragmatists.

This is just intentionally blurring the lines only when you find it convenient.

It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that you should think real hard before justifying your arbitrary moral laws.

If you realized that your moral laws are arbitrary and biased you would stop being so attached to them.

Roe v Wade struck a reasonable and healthy balance for how to handle abortions. Now that balance has been up-ended on dogmatic moralistic grounds.

[thisintegrated]

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Then why do you need two words to describe it. It is because it is different. By that logic there is no difference between Hitler and  a baby.

Don't use high level abstractions to justify things according to your convenience.

No difference in terms of value.  Don't just ignore the context.

Edited May 7, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Reciprocality]

Instead of loosy goosy defining what a human is you may try instead to think trough that in terms of which an experience or an emotion is owed a representation, such that it under the head of "human" constitutes some substance.

You may find that even though definitions are a bare minimum for many conversations such as these they really comes back to bite you in the end, that is if even so much as hypothetical consensus is to be established.

    If you can not even establish that there is something of a possible experience 'out there' which is different from its inherence/subsistence in you (typically considered a material or independent world, though irreducible to either/both, it may be stated otherwise as an absolute, or at the very least an object for seeming convergence between the two subjects), then it which constitutes the matter of discourse inheres instead to you alone. From this it follows that a hypothetical consensus would be impossible, and that instead whatever is exposed in an actual experience in you is that which another must be ruled by for an actual consensus, this then by 1. its absurd nature is unlikely and meaningless and 2. by its tyrannical nature fruitless.

   So you may define a human as something which breaths and thinks or which suffers and enjoys, and that a true human does some or all these now or tomorrow, this may help you to get started but hardly ever helps your thinking, it is likely instead to frame the world in terms of ways you are now experiencing it trough, from where an incapacity to analyse the world and especially its accidents ensues.

You began thereby what were an honest inquiry into oughts and shoulds and ended up defending a premature definition by which thinking were made efficient, and to which a whole range of diverging phenomenons are beholden despotically or dogmatically.

 

    Instead subject x and y are better of 1. exposing possible experiences of the world, 2. thinking trough their likely consequences, 3. establishing a   general theory of when something is better judged in terms of it's intrinsic value and 4. when it is better judged in terms of its instrumental value. And lastly procedure 5. by which you theorize as well to whether information of the substantial world in relation to that in it which were exposed may or may not render the exposed obsolete after the fact.

Then and only then, by the substance to which a definition has meaning to you and hypothetical consensus with another are you on minimal grounds to contribute with a definition, well to my standards anyways on ethical matters. I have some controversial stances on abortions so far as I allow myself to have a general stance at all, though if someone find the almost scientific means to consensus-making above intriguing or valuable then I may be happy to respond on the actual matter of it as well, but until then I will steer clear of its efforts.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Reciprocality

[zurew]

@Reciprocality Do you have an actual stance using your approach? Because i would be curious how it would play out. ( I won't start a debate, i am just curious, how it would be applied, or how would you construct it using your principles, don't even have to be applicable in the court)

[Bobby_2021]

5 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

No difference in terms of value.  Don't just ignore the context.

Sperm on its own cannot make a baby. 

It has to added value to make it to a fetus. 

This makes the fetus more valuable than the sperm.

[AuroraDream]

Theres so much criminal behavior and corruption in the phrama industry that would surprise the average person, do some research if you dont believe me

Many fda approved drugs and products that have undergone trials and deemed to be safe have been recalled and ended up being harmful, fatal, linked to cancers and more. it's even been admitted by previous workers and whistleblowers of these industries that they knew a product was dangerous and linked to certain serious issues and they sold them anyway. that's where shit gets really weird and creepy

 

vaccine hesitancy with these facts alone i think is fair and people shouldn't have to lose their entire careers over refusing it. 

 

[Bobby_2021]

7 hours ago, AuroraDream said:

vaccine hesitancy with these facts alone i think is fair and people shouldn't have to lose their entire careers over refusing it. 

There is too much to talk about vaccines & c19 but this thread was not about it per say. 

I expected people to say something like "mandates happened & it was unfortunate." 

Which would be the correct stance. 

Instead what I got is unconsciously setting the precedent for government to violate bodily Autonomy.

Thankfully here in India the supreme court is against forcing everyone to get vaccinated citing bodily Autonomy & individual integrity. 

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/covid-no-individual-can-be-forced-to-take-vaccination-supreme-court-1944356-2022-05-02

Edited May 7, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

There is too much to talk about vaccines & c19 but this thread which was not about it per say. 

I expected people to say something like "mandates happened & it was unfortunate." 

Which would be the correct stance. 

Instead what I got is unconsciously setting the precedent for government to violate bodily Autonomy.

 

On 2022. 05. 06. at 4:25 PM, zurew said:

So the hypothetical:

If we had a virus where the chance of dying would be 100% and it would be infectious, and the way you could spread this virus would be by getting near any people, or by touching anything that an infected person touched before. Then in this case, if we had a vaccine (that could stop the spreading with 100% chance and the dying from the virus with a 90% chance, so if you got the vaccine it wouldn't be 100% that you would survive but you would totally stop the spreading) for that, would you still take the stance to advocate for the "my body my choice" or in this case you would say that okay it is a necessity to vaccinate people because if we don't do it then humanity won't survive.

If you say yes, i wouldn't advocate for "my body my choice", then you can see that we can find an instance where even yourself would agree with me, that there are cases where government stepping in not necessarily bad. The only question is where do we draw our lines here as well, in what cases do we consider "my body my choice" a greater lose than gain.

If you say no, then you are basically saying, that you don't really care about societal harm, you value much more the individual autonomy. (If you take this kind of morality, obviously most people won't agree with you, and will consider you very immoral  based on their morality)

[Bobby_2021]

On 5/6/2022 at 8:03 PM, Consept said:

I'd be happy for them to mandate exercise I just don't see how it could work in practise. Like if someone really doesn't want to work out how would you get them to do it? Would they lose their job if they don't work out, how would that help anyone? Would you track the amount of hours per week? The amount of money it would cost just to enforce, you could put that into the health sustem. It just seems a lot of work and restrictions vs a vaccine which is literally 5 mins of your time, much more easy to mandate. 

The point is to not mandate exercises like communists.

Violating individuals like this is unsustainable. And in the long run, any powerful entity that overcontrols individuals beyond their autonomy & integrity will be judged harshly by history.

Some vision making people healthy that will be to systematically encourage people to work out and clean up their diet, but more slightly more stricter than it is doing right now. This has to built into the culture.

Maybe give free gym memberships for fat people and encourage them to work out. Now that's a creative solution. Maybe the government themselves can take initiatives to build gyms and make them more accessible to people. And the rest has to do with cleaning up the diet.  This must be done culturally & from the side of the government. And how it's exactly must be implemented is up for discussion. 

Always go with accommodating and creative solutions instead of one size fits all solutions.

Edited May 7, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

 

The thing about vaccine is that it is a great solution for obese people and those with pre existing medical issues. They are the group of people hardest hit by c19. So such people may be required to take it since they are the ones who are also likely to flood up hospitals. Those who already works out and is fit do not need to be forced this on.

Studies have shown that even if you are in a confined room with an infected person, wearing a mask is sufficient protection from getting infected. 

Since that is the case you really have no reason to blame those who haven't taken the vax to explain why those who have taken the vax is infected. 

You also have to consider the placebo effect of vaccines. If someone believes that the vax is bad for them, giving them the vax turns their health actually bad. So it is in their best interest to leave them alone.

The opposite is true as well, if someone thinks that the vax is good, then they vaccine starts to show better efficacy.( Even if they were injected with water in the name of vaccine)

I wonder why no one even thinks of this. Placebo effect is much more stronger than you think.

[zurew]

If anyone reading this thread, and want to see this forums last debate about covid19 and vaccine stuff with stats and sources and arguments, then check this thread out. There you can find some questions that vaccine hesitated people asked, some changed their opinion.

The vaccine discussion mostly starting at page 3

 

[thisintegrated]

15 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Sperm on its own cannot make a baby. 

It has to added value to make it to a fetus. 

This makes the fetus more valuable than the sperm.

No inherent value to a fetus so it's no different.

[Consept]

5 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

The point is to not mandate exercises like communists.

Violating individuals like this is unsustainable. And in the long run, any powerful entity that overcontrols individuals beyond their autonomy & integrity will be judged harshly by history.

Some vision making people healthy that will be to systematically encourage people to work out and clean up their diet, but more slightly more stricter than it is doing right now. This has to built into the culture.

Maybe give free gym memberships for fat people and encourage them to work out. Now that's a creative solution. Maybe the government themselves can take initiatives to build gyms and make them more accessible to people. And the rest has to do with cleaning up the diet.  This must be done culturally & from the side of the government. And how it's exactly must be implemented is up for discussion. 

Always go with accommodating and creative solutions instead of one size fits all solutions.

The UK, where I'm from, does a lot of the things you mentioned, including giving free gym memberships. In fact here's a breakdown of what they do and the scale of the problem - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-matters-obesity-and-the-food-environment/health-matters-obesity-and-the-food-environment--2

Obesity is still a massive problem here, people actually protested when they reduced the sugar in soft drinks. Point is the government can only do so much to get people to make the right choices for themselves let alone others especially when disinformation is so prevalent. I'm not really for any mandates but I'm also not for disinformation and conspiracy theories actively clouding people's judgement. I can also understand why a work place might require their workers to get a vaccine if it affects the workplace. 

[Kensho]

The hypocricy of the potentiality arguers is more than obvious in the case of artificial insemination. 

In clinics were IVF is done, thousands of fertilized embryos are being killed all the time, or donated for various scopes. Nobody bothers to say something about that. 

As an example I will bring up a story of a friendly couple. They did artificial insemination and many fertilized eggs were put into the woman s body. After a month or so, i called my friend to ask how is it going and he told me lauging "i have triplets". Three of the eggs put inside her started developing. As they wanted just to have one child, afterwards, the doctor aborted two of them randomly and they kept one. They have a happy family with their one kid now.  

 The woman, for some days, had three potenialities in her uterus, that would develop to human beings but aborted two of them. 

And this is happening all the fucking time, in clinics all around the world. It is standard procedure. How Come and  they are not assaulted for multiple murders? 

It s simple.

IVF patients make less-attractive targets because we don’t challenge the expectation that women want to be mothers. Abortion, on the other hand, thwarts conservative ideals about a woman’s proper role as a wife and mother.

This may be why, counterintuitively, women have greater freedom to decide what to do with an embryo in a petri dish or an excessive number of embryos inside them, than a single pregnancy in their own bodies. 

 

Edit: There are people moving against IVF but it is done in a small scale. In any case it is  excempted from abortion prohibition in a connive way. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by Kensho

[Husseinisdoingfine]

 

[puporing]

@Husseinisdoingfine Saw that same clip yesterday lmao! ? 

(Fyi, I recommend that youtube channel subscription for the membership - tons of recordings of Osho)

[Rokazulu]

On 5/7/2022 at 10:22 AM, Bobby_2021 said:

Thankfully here in India the supreme court is against forcing everyone to get vaccinated citing bodily Autonomy & individual integrity. 

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/covid-no-individual-can-be-forced-to-take-vaccination-supreme-court-1944356-2022-05-02

Would be nice to have a ruling like that here.
Especially, since vaccine companies are not liable for any damages.

A pandemic of the unvaccinated is not a correct statement to make.
Vaccines either work for the individual, or they do not. It can't be both.

Bodily autonomy please. This whole affair was really absurd to see happen.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

56 minutes ago, puporing said:

(Fyi, I recommend that youtube channel subscription for the membership - tons of recordings of Osho)

I had it for two months, it’s a gold mine.