Bodily Autonomy: Abortions & Vaccines

[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.

[Bobby_2021]

Anyone who thinks that I am an Anti abortion nut case ideologically defending Pro-Life side has completely missed the point.

Infact I have defended abortion rights on twitter against conservatives. I have built some carefully constructed arguments here to make you understand the other side and you may not be as objective as you think you are.

Especially on the equivalent stance on vaccines. I think I have gotten my point across well.

13 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

since vaccine companies are not liable for any damages.

This alone should be enough of a detterant from forcing anything on anyone, since plenty of companies (including the prominent vaccine makers have added horrible contents into their medicines that was later known to cause cancer and stuff).

13 hours ago, Rokazulu said:

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

I do respect abortion rights of women.

Honestly speaking, it's hard for me to be sympathetic towards who want abortion rights but also simultaneously require everyone else to be forcibly vaccinated.

[ Also considering that everything regarding the vaccines was highly disputed and controversial. You cannot claim objectivity here. ]

Like why should I respect others who don't respect me?

Universe have worked to expose your hypocrisy is such a short span of time.

[Bobby_2021]

15 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

He will go broke giving child support,if not for child support, considering the number of women he fucked.??

[something_else]

When it comes to abortion, my thoughts are always that the potential suffering of the child is the primary concern.

If you are pregnant at 15, there's a very high chance the resultant kid will suffer. If you are pregnant when you're financially unstable, there's a high chance the resultant kid will suffer. If you are pregnant when you are very unhealthy, there is a high chance the resultant kid will suffer. If you are pregnant with an unhealthy fetus, there is a high chance the resultant kid will suffer. If you are pregnant and dissatisfied with your life, there is a high chance the resultant kid will suffer. If you are pregnant and mentally unstable, there is a high chance the resultant kid will suffer.

Having the kid in any of the above circumstances could easily be construed as selfishness.

IMO you should only have kids when you are in a suitable position in life to give them a good life. Having a kid should be something you do intentionally because you want to create an amazing and beautiful life for the child and a fulfilling life for yourself.

If you can't do that, do everything to avoid getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. If you somehow get pregnant, then IMO you should seriously consider abortion until you are ready to have a kid intentionally. Especially in modern times, where our world requires a very careful upbringing to create a mentally stable child.

Abortion should always ultimately be up to the woman, of course. The idea that it's murder is silly, especially when it's a bundle of cells. You kill more life every day by stepping on insects outside or eating meat. Even in later stages of pregnancy, it's difficult to argue that the fetus can suffer. And I would argue that the suffering it would experience from being aborted is far less severe than the potential suffering if the child is born into a family that isn't ready or doesn't want it. Not to mention the suffering that the child may then go on to cause others if it is not raised correctly.

I'm usually a pretty neutral person, but this is one of my slightly more radical opinions.

In terms of comparing it with vaccines, I don't see the comparison really. At least in the UK, vaccines were never mandated. We just restricted what you could do if you weren't vaccinated. You could still choose not to be vaccinated, but there was a cost associated with it

Edited May 9, 2022 by something_else

[Bobby_2021]

Man Paralyzed by the AsterZeneca covid vaccine, now on the way to get awarded a compensation.

Is any amount of compensation justified?

I mean he basically got his life ruined for some vax that was meant to protect the safety of others. 

This is a strong case for why you should NOT mandate vaccines. 

How would you even track the people who died from the vaccine, whose data would obviously get lost in the people who died from C19? 

[Gidiot]

@Lewk source?

[Bobby_2021]

9 hours ago, Gidiot said:

@Lewk source?

Isn't it kind of implied? 

Anyways would you support Abortions with the state dis-incentivising them? 

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

On 5/5/2022 at 4:44 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

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

Well if I kill you that's murder. If you kill yourself that's suicide. If I start touching my dick because I've got the urge to it's called masturbation. If I walked up to someone and started touching their dick because I felt the urge to do so that'd be sexual assault. So yes. Different people doing the same thing changes the "fact" of the matter, because a "fact" is WORTHLESS without any context to go with it.

The second one is difficult to adress because there are a lot of different moral systems people use to analyze the world. One one hand you could say that it's not the same as #MBMC because of the fact that illnesses affect other people and that what you do to your body is NOT your choice in that regard because of the damages that your decision might do to other people's lives. Someone might reply to that by saying that you damage lives by killing babies. Someone might say to that that you wouldn't consider an unborn embryo (below a certain time of pregnancy) to be a full fledged human life and that they value grown people differently. And then it would just derail into a debate about "when life starts". The problem is that people have different values and you can't really say that "Team A" is right while "Team B" is wrong because our opinions are based on limited assumptions, highly biased perspectives and morals.

When two cavemen have a disagreement about a female they'll settle it by crushing each others skull. That's a limited approach to conflict, so you don't see that too much anymore (as long you live in a stable environment), but the fundamental game hasn't changed. The human mind has abstractified (is that even a word haha) survival, but survival is still at play. The point that I'm making is that there is no right or wrong here. It's a question of which caveman can crush the other caveman's skull first. You've just got to pick which caveman sides with your personal values more. If you feel that the points "the other side" is making resonate with you then maybe you're more suited to be a pro-lifer. Or maybe you're neutral and you don't care which caveman wins.

Edited June 19, 2022 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

On 6/17/2022 at 1:21 PM, Lewk said:

Liberals don't understand that if abortion is made illegal meaning there's a punishment for it but it's still done by the state due to the previously mentioned necessity, then there will be less abortions (because people will be more careful/responsible) which is actually good for women.

Wait how is that good for women? Controlling women with fear of pregnancy is not what I'd consider to be "good" for women, so I'd like to know what you mean by that.

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

On 05/05/2022 at 3:44 PM, Bobby_2021 said:

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.

   I'm curious, but did you make this thread in response to the wadd case, or the recent debate about abortion between two twitch streamerw with Destiny being the moderator?

[Danioover9000]

@Bobby_2021

   I'm not too sure myself where I stand strongly in this issue. I'm pro vax and mandate if a disease, virus, bacterial or fungal, starts going from epidemic to pandemic, and is causing an increase rate in infection and harm to society. I'm generally pro life, but if the mother's life is in danger and an abortion is necessary to save her life, or if the woman's pregnancy was criminal and evil, like rape or incest, or the parents to be are not financially secure enough to rear. There's so many factors for either issue to factor in that I can't give a strong position to.

  That said, I'm against severe enforcement of law, like lawsuits to the 100,00s or sentencing to jail for 5-10 or so years if you refuse to vaccine or attempting to get an abortion.

[Bobby_2021]

12 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

Different people doing the same thing changes the "fact" of the matter, because a "fact" is WORTHLESS without any context to go with it.

Here the context is already clear. The different people are also clear. 

 

12 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

Wait how is that good for women? Controlling women with fear of pregnancy is not what I'd consider to be "good" for women, so I'd like to know what you mean by that.

Not the fear of pregnancy. But it will prepare them to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In a responsible way. 

 

6 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

I'm curious, but did you make this thread in response to the wadd case, or the recent debate about abortion between two twitch streamerw with Destiny being the moderator?

Yes in response to Roe vs wade.

I don't know about these streamers. ?

 

[Bobby_2021]

My overall conclusion from all the interactions is this:

1) You must let people have sovereignty over their own body.

The state has no right to intervene or make laws that will violate bodily Autonomy.

2) We must discourage undesirable outcomes.

But never force people who do not trust you to use their product. 

People don't take into account how TRUST plays into this. Most of the "misinformation" problems are actually trust problems. You cannot force people to trust a product you made. 

6 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Bobby_2021

 

  That said, I'm against severe enforcement of law, like lawsuits to the 100,00s or sentencing to jail for 5-10 or so years if you refuse to vaccine or attempting to get an abortion.

Small ways to discouraging un vaxxed people are fine. But some measures that go too far must be avoided.

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Here the context is already clear. The different people are also clear. 

The problem is actually that it's not clear. Context in a broader sense also includes our personal perspectives from which we view the world. When people are confronted with a scenario like this they project their own perspectives onto the scenario and confuse that projection as the real context. So on a personal level it might seem like there is a clear context, but on a collective level the context becomes real messy because of how many idiologies there are through which people then filter these issues. Humanity offers an incredibly diverse amount of personal interests. It's impossible to find a solution that will adress all of them. 

3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Not the fear of pregnancy. But it will prepare them to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In a responsible way. 

It's really a question of your own idiology/agenda and if you're willing to take certain costs. If you valued life by itself you probably wouldn't care about the personal experiences of women if it meant that embryos were being aborted. If you valued autonomy you might care less about embryos and more about a womans right to her body. It really depends on your own morals and what trade-offs you're willing to make.

Personally I believe that the best preperation is education.

Edited June 20, 2022 by DefinitelyNotARobot

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

on a collective level the context becomes real messy because of how many idiologies there are through which people then filter these issues

On a collective level, if you are going to take the opinions of millions or billions of people, then I can assure you, clarity will be the last thing you are going to get.

Nothing is clear at the collective level, not just abortions or vaccines.

They way that the masses think itself isn't Clear, then how come they can be clear about complicated issues. 

We will lucky to get some clarity at individual level, atleast. 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Bobby_2021]

3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotARobot said:

If you valued autonomy you might care less about embryos and more about a womans right to her body. It really depends on your own morals and what trade-offs you're willing to make.

Personally I believe that the best preperation is education.

I value personal autonomy all the time above all costs. Not only mine,but also others.

But it should apply to all the situations. Not nitpick on where to have autonomy and where it should not. 

Else the conversation will get muddled so badly where everyone gets to project their baggage and explain why it is okay to violate others autonomy while simultaneously crying about their own autonomy geting violated.

Hypocritical tbh. 

 

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

@Bobby_2021 I'm not really saying that you should take opinions from the masses, though you should also be careful not to turn this into a shadow where you rebel for the sake of rebellion itself without any inherent goals in mind. In the end the only thing you can contribute to society is to work on yourself and become the best human you could possibly be. What I'm saying is that you must investigate problems from both, an individual level, but also the collective level since there isn't really any true seperation between the two. This requires us to understand the differences in values and morals between people. People project their morals onto the world thinking that they have an accurate perception of it. This is problematic, because as they say: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Awareness of a problem is the first step towards adressing it. Conflict of interest is going to be a big problem if you're trying to create a certain shift in society. That's why multiperspectival thinking is going to be important if we want to advance as a species. Most political idiologies don't really reward this behavior, which is why it's so difficult to see how another faction would just outright refuse to see the obvious facts in their right context. It's because it's relative.

[DefinitelyNotARobot]

40 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

But it should apply to all the situations. Not nitpick on where to have autonomy and where it should not.

I wouldn't agree with having to apply a value in 100% of instances in order not to be a hypocrite. I value empatyh, but if I was attacked by an hungry animal I would still defend my life, even though I could just stand there and get myself killed because I empathized with the animals hunger. It's okay to set boundaries as long as one stays aware of the fact that it's just a mental construction. One doesn't have to be 100% consistent because one can't be 100% perfect (in a relative sense). Doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it, just that you shouldn't put such an unrealistic expectation onto anybody.

Edited June 20, 2022 by DefinitelyNotARobot