Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[Lucidus]

(06-28-2022, 06:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In many cases not if they want to remain employed, or go to a restaurant, or a public event.

Vaccine mandates exist in instances where the health and safety of the overall population is significantly jeopardized by the transmission of a dangerous, scientifically verified infectious disease. 

However, even in the instance of a mandate, you still retain your bodily autonomy and have the freedom to not get vaccinated. If you choose to exercise that freedom, it comes with certain limitations as to how and where you can interact with other members of the population because you put the health and safety of everyone you come in contact with at greater risk, not just yourself.

Abortions are not infectious, do not physically harm others and any medical risks are confined to the individual. Taking away the right to get an abortion would necessarily be a violation of a person's bodily autonomy because any health and safety risks are limited to the individual and not the population at large. 

[*jason*]

(06-28-2022, 06:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In many cases not if they want to remain employed, or go to a restaurant, or a public event.

More than a few people will run into those problems keeping an unwanted pregnancy too... No?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-28-2022, 06:14 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Vaccine mandates exist in instances where the health and safety of the overall population is significantly jeopardized by the transmission of a dangerous, scientifically verified infectious disease.

More accurately, when it's perceived to be. 

Quote:However, even in the instance of a mandate, you still retain your bodily autonomy and have the freedom to not get vaccinated. If you choose to exercise that freedom, it comes with certain limitations as to how and where you can interact with other members of the population because you put the health and safety of everyone you come in contact with at greater risk, not just yourself.

I see.  So you'd be ok with legalizing abortion, but if you get one you lose your job?  You're still exercising your bodily autonomy.

Quote:Abortions are not infectious, do not physically harm others

I believe this statement is considered incorrect by every single person who is against abortion.  The latter part, to be specific.

Quote:and any medical risks are confined to the individual. Taking away the right to get an abortion would necessarily be a violation of a person's bodily autonomy because any health and safety risks are limited to the individual and not the population at large. 

So then, your argument is not for bodily autonomy at all, it's for a perceived collective benefit.  Or, more directly, that you perceive bodily autonomy to be overridden by a perceived public benefit, i.e. a risk to the health and safety of others?  Are Mumps, Measles, Rubella and other vaccines mandated?  Is there not a collective health and safety risk created by those who refuse such vaccines?

Also, is abortion, especially past the first trimester, not the deliberate killing of a human being?   Even if you take the ability to survive separately from the mother into account, the youngest baby to be born premature and survive was 21 weeks old.  Consequently, any abortion that takes place after that time period is demonstrably killing a human that could conceivably survive separate from the mother.  Is the procedure not a deliberate threat to that person's health and safety?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-28-2022, 06:20 PM)jason Wrote: More than a few people will run into those problems keeping an unwanted pregnancy too... No?

Not really.  Try firing someone because they're pregnant and watch them back up the Brinks truck to load up the lawsuit money they'll win.  As for the second and third example, absolutely not.

[basballguy]

(06-28-2022, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not really.  Try firing someone because they're pregnant and watch them back up the Brinks truck to load up the lawsuit money they'll win.  As for the second and third example, absolutely not.

I'm not sure why you keep trying.  It's clear they want to argue the ethics and morality (with an absurd amount of nonsense) while you're trying to argue the law and the fundamentals of the constitution.  

I gave up.  You should too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-28-2022, 06:42 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm not sure why you keep trying.  It's clear they want to argue the ethics and morality (with an absurd amount of nonsense) while you're trying to argue the law and the fundamentals of the constitution.  

I gave up.  You should too.

I enjoy the back and forth.  I also like to argue points I don't personally believe, I think it keeps you empathetic and open to other viewpoints.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-28-2022, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not really.  Try firing someone because they're pregnant and watch them back up the Brinks truck to load up the lawsuit money they'll win.  As for the second and third example, absolutely not.

(06-28-2022, 06:42 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm not sure why you keep trying.  It's clear they want to argue the ethics and morality (with an absurd amount of nonsense) while you're trying to argue the law and the fundamentals of the constitution.  

I gave up.  You should too.

I mean. Keep on ignoring the obvious. How pregnant do they have to be before they infect others?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-28-2022, 07:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I mean. Keep on ignoring the obvious. How pregnant do they have to be before they infect others?

I see, you're going to ignore the actual points made and invent your own.  Well done, you clearly have a lot of faith in your position to pull such a move.

[*pally*]

(06-28-2022, 06:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not really.  Try firing someone because they're pregnant and watch them back up the Brinks truck to load up the lawsuit money they'll win.  As for the second and third example, absolutely not.

Women get fired every day because of pregnancy.  Very few are successful in suing in at-will states.  The employer will always have a non-pregnancy reason

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-28-2022, 07:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I see, you're going to ignore the actual points made and invent your own.  Well done, you clearly have a lot of faith in your position to pull such a move.

My position was vaccines are different than pregnancy. I have plenty of faith in my position.

My question that you dodged still stands?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-28-2022, 07:20 PM)pally Wrote: Women get fired every day because of pregnancy.  Very few are successful in suing in at-will states.  The employer will always have a non-pregnancy reason

Then they weren't fired for being pregnant, by your own admission.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-28-2022, 07:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: My position was vaccines are different than pregnancy.

I agree.  But both fall under bodily autonomy.

Quote:I have plenty of faith in my position.

My question that you dodged still stands?

Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.  You dodged my initial question in your initial response.  Making someone get a vaccine is violating their bodily autonomy, is it not?

[*jason*]

(06-28-2022, 07:20 PM)pally Wrote: Women get fired every day because of pregnancy.  Very few are successful in suing in at-will states.  The employer will always have a non-pregnancy reason

Yep... My experience with it is purely anecdotal, but my ex was fired from the (catholic) school she taught at when she was pregnant with my daughter... Out of wedlock. It definitely happens.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2022, 07:20 PM)pally Wrote: Women get fired every day because of pregnancy.  Very few are successful in suing in at-will states.  The employer will always have a non-pregnancy reason

And it’s illegal. People getting away with illegal acts doesn’t make them legal.

[*michaelsean*]

A government mandated vaccine would be a violation of autonomy. You can argue the merits, but not what it is.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-28-2022, 07:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree.  But both fall under bodily autonomy.


Oh, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way.  You dodged my initial question in your initial response.  Making someone get a vaccine is violating their bodily autonomy, is it not?

It is. And so is forced blood tests. And I am vehemently against a forced blood test for DUI where you are drawing fluids from a detained individual, and it happens. But if it came down to fighting alien covid 69 and we had the need for blood samples... America's top scientists are on it and we are need to make it happen

[GMDino]

(06-28-2022, 04:33 PM)Sled21 Wrote:  
Did I ever say they WEREN"T flawed individuals???? Didn't think so.... and again, if there shouldn't be laws taking away rights, then vote out the state representatives who pass such laws, or better yet, amend the Constitution. Just don't pretend something is in there that isn't.

You're so angry...lol.

Voting is all well and good, well until the gerrymandered districts are factored in.  And the gop members who won't even certify elections they lost until threatened with lawsuits.  And on and on...

Lots of things aren't there.  Including with the ever so precious 2A...but the courts "interpreted" it in a way that made it what it is today.  Same as abortion was made a right through an interpretation that this court didn't believe in.

Folks never like when then pendulum swings back.

They never will.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2022, 07:40 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: It is. And so is forced blood tests. And I am vehemently against a forced blood test for DUI where you are drawing fluids from a detained individual, and it happens. But if it came down to fighting alien covid 69 and we had the need for blood samples... America's top scientists are on it and we are need to make it happen

See, where I fall on these things is not having the government have a law AGAINST something that doesn't affect anyone else.

Abortion.  Personal choice.  Will not affect another person.

So if a business wants to fire you for getting an abortion I'd be against that.

Vaccines.  Personal choice BUT can affect people around you.

So if businesses mandate the vaccine and you refuse for no other reason than you're autonomy then that's on you...but you run the risk of affecting your coworkers and/or customers.

How about just getting pregnant?

If a business says single women can't get pregnant and they fire you for it that's on you too...but you aren't affecting anyone else so I disagree with it.

It's a fine line.

Edit:  This said it better than I did.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-28-2022, 08:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: You're so angry...lol.

Calm down, Sally.  You get butthurt on this board so often your casting the accusation at others is laughable.

(06-28-2022, 08:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: See, where I fall on these things is not having the government have a law AGAINST something that doesn't affect anyone else.

Abortion.  Personal choice.  Will not affect another person.

So if a business wants to fire you for getting an abortion I'd be against that.

Vaccines.  Personal choice BUT can affect people around you.

So if businesses mandate the vaccine and you refuse for no other reason than you're autonomy then that's on you...but you run the risk of affecting your coworkers and/or customers.

How about just getting pregnant?

If a business says single women can't get pregnant and they fire you for it that's on you too...but you aren't affecting anyone else so I disagree with it.

It's a fine line.

Edit:  This said it better than I did.

That reminds me, you didn't answer my earlier question.  Since you seem to be obsessed with some of the Framers being slave owners, kindly answer this question.  Does being a slave owner automatically make you a horrible person?  Does it invalidate all of your beliefs and ideals?  Does it taint everything else you do in your life time?

[Dill]

(06-28-2022, 07:38 PM)michaelsean Wrote: A government mandated vaccine would be a violation of autonomy. You can argue the merits, but not what it is.

To some degree, all laws are a violation of "autonomy." 

The social contract of modern liberal democracies, which separates them from ancient and medieval, is based upon "natural" rights of individuals, some of which are given up whole or in degree in order that all can live together collectively and safely, and in a manner which presumably enhances their freedom to exercise those rights.

People (I'm agreeing with you here, Mike) should not argue as if there is some pure state of bodily autonomy/freedom
in democracies which is then limited only by SOME laws, like vaccine mandates or anti-abortion statutes. 

In liberal democracies, the issue with laws is always how society balances individual autonomy/rights against the good of the collective.
So we have these discussions about both vaccine mandates and abortion, right along with traffic regulation, pornography, gay marriages, the teaching of evolution in public schools, and open carry. 

Which side and to which degree people come down on vaccination/abortion has everything to do with their values, including and especially religious values. But in the case of liberal democracies (based on rights of politically equal individuals, as opposed to class rights) there is bound to be a special or increased tension in cases where the values of a minority can legally regulate the behavior of a supermajority which does not share those values.  E.g., imagine if a minority of anti-vaxers could outlaw ALL vaccinations. 

The founders did not expect it to happen, but we have reached a point where features of our Constitution designed to protect minorities now enable a minority to dominate the majority.