What happened to the hard-fought freedom's right to the privacy of our body?

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 55
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,246
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
Is freedom's right to the privacy of our body limited just to women and for specifically the right to an abortion, and, otherwise, the State has that freedom to dictate, such as relative to Covid vaccines?
This really is quite simple, let’s start with a basic outline of relevant rights:

1. Every human being, including a fetus, has a right to its own body.

2. No human has a right to impede on the rights of others, including endangering the health and safety of others, unless it is the natural and necessary effect of upholding right #1.

That’s it. From here you get the left’s position.

Abortion is permissible because even though it undoubtably causes harm to the fetus (apparent violation of #2), it is the necessary effect of upholding right #1.

If vaccine mandates included strapping the unvaccinated down and injecting them by force, then mandates would violate right #1, but they don’t. What mandates say is that you can have right #1 all you want, but you don’t get to engage in number 2.

There’s nothing hypocritical here. What’s hypocritical is claiming that #2 takes precedent over #1 when it comes to what you’re allowed to do to others but not when it comes to what others can do to you.
Topic's author
#32
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Double_R
That’s it. From here you get the left’s position.
Exactly. I agree, that is the left's position, and it is flawed. The left must impose the caveat of #2 that the exception is "the natural and necessary effect of upholding right #1" in order to make sense out of right #1 by enabling its exception.  When does any right enable its exception but when the rights of another person are infringed? Example: The government [state, primarily] decided to infringe the freedom of religion, a right for all who wish to engage [it is not mandatory that people do], in response to Covid, to prohibit gathering for religious services when, in NV, for example, casinos were allowed to remain open. No, that was unconstitutional.   And, what, pray tell, is natural or necessary about abortion; the act of artificially ending the life of the embyro/fetus?

No, sorry, the exception fails the rights test.
#33
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
If your religion involves human sacrifice; do you still have the right to practice that religion?

If your epileptic - should you be able to work in a job that requires operation of cars or dangerous heavy machinery - if you have a risk of seizures, and are not taking antI-seizure medication?
#34
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Ramshutu
If your religion involves human sacrifice; do you still have the right to practice that religion?
This. I fear many of the people I'm surrounded by from day to day would nod in the affirmative. 
#35
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
 in response to Covid, to prohibit gathering for religious services when, in NV, for example, casinos were allowed to remain open.
I haven't heard about that one. Do you have a source I could peruse?
#36
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
This. I fear many of the people I'm surrounded by from day to day would nod in the affirmative. 
When I was living in Kansas, I would agree. 

The fundamental issue really is that almost no one is pro life; people just differ in terms of what circumstances and conditions people do or don’t have that right.
Topic's author
#37
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
No, because human sacrifice infringes on the sacrificial victim's rights. All our rights end at another person's nose, so to speak.
Topic's author
#38
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

I said it's unconstitutional, but, unfortunately, SCOTUS ruled 5-4, including Roberts joining the 4 liberal judges on the Court, who determined that while casinos may remain open, because they are businesses, churches, which are not businesses, must close. The four dissenters argued that such distinctions do not matter, since the intent was to limit mass exposure in a public setting, which casinos are, regardless of being businesses. I agree, SCOTUS was not ruling in the public's best interest.
#39
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
That was only 1/2 of my post - what is your answer to the other one?

If your epileptic - should you be able to work in a job that requires operation of cars or dangerous heavy machinery - if you have a risk of seizures, and are not taking antI-seizure medication?
#40
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,894
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@drlebronski
So those are the ideas of American conservativism. Got it. I must be some unknown ideology. I fucking hate govt and want as little of it as possible. 
Topic's author
#41
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
Epilepsy:


"If an employee can perform their job functions in a manner which does not pose a safety hazard to themselves or others, the fact they have a disability is irrelevant."

See the Americans With Disabilities Act.

#42
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
If your epileptic - should you be able to work in a job that requires operation of cars or dangerous heavy machinery - if you have a risk of seizures, and are not taking antI-seizure medication?


"If an employee can perform their job functions in a manner which does not pose a safety hazard to themselves or others, the fact they have a disability is irrelevant."

See the Americans With Disabilities Act.
You don’t seem to be directly answering the question.

It seems that you agree - if an epileptic cannot carry out their job safely due to risk of seizures - it’s okay for them to not be allowed to work in that role.

Or in other words; you seem to be agreeing it’s completely fine to mandate that epileptics take medication to control their seizures of working in an area where seizures can impact safety of others. 

Right? It’s not clear because you didn’t answer the question directly.


Topic's author
#43
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes, I agree, if an epileptic's fulfilling of work duties might endanger others, then those others' rights to work in a safe environment are endangered. T0he epileptic should take medication if that will prevent the seizures that might otherwise endanger fellow workers, or should work under conditions that preclude endangering others. I expect that a legally blind person should also not work under conditions that could be potentially hazardous for others, such as driving a bus.

I don't see that these situations violate the standard that rights end where others' noses begin.
#44
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
Yes, I agree, if an epileptic's fulfilling of work duties might endanger others, then those others' rights to work in a safe environment are endangered. T0he epileptic should take medication if that will prevent the seizures that might otherwise endanger fellow workers, or should work under conditions that preclude endangering others. I expect that a legally blind person should also not work under conditions that could be potentially hazardous for others, such as driving a bus.

I don't see that these situations violate the standard that rights end where others' noses begin.
They don’t specifically; but what you just described for is the justification for current vaccine mandates:

If an [unvaccinated worked] fulfilling of work duties might endanger others, then those others' rights to work in a safe environment are endangered. The [unvaccinated person] should take [a vaccine]  if that will [minimize] the [risk of passing a dangerous pathogen] that might otherwise endanger fellow workers, or should work under conditions that preclude endangering others.
Topic's author
#45
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
They don’t specifically; but what you just described for is the justification for current vaccine mandates:
No, because:

If an [unvaccinated worked] fulfilling of work duties might endanger others, then those others' rights to work in a safe environment are endangered. The [unvaccinated person] should take [a vaccine]  if that will [minimize] the [risk of passing a dangerous pathogen] that might otherwise endanger fellow workers, or should work under conditions that preclude endangering others.
That argument would hold water if the vaccine were 100% effective, but it just is not. Better-than-nothing is not the ultimate outcome because the vaccinated are not 100% protected, so are also at risk of contaminating others. What of that scenario. We have certain acceptable risks in living in society, because we also contract cancer, lung disease, heart disease, flu, etc, by associating with society. Shall we fire people for having those diseases, and mandate that they must take preventative medicines, if they are even available, too?
#46
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
That argument would hold water if the vaccine were 100% effective, but it just is not. Better-than-nothing is not the ultimate outcome because the vaccinated are not 100% protected, so are also at risk of contaminating others.
Why does this matter when the goal is about minimizing the risk - not to eliminate it.  In the epileptics case - it’s not that medication is 100% effective, but that it lowers the risk to something acceptable. Right?

It seems the distinction you draw is a red herring; as in actuality - the epilepsy example you agree with is practically identical. 

What of that scenario. We have certain acceptable risks in living in society, because we also contract cancer, lung disease, heart disease, flu, etc, by associating with society.  Shall we fire people for having those diseases, and mandate that they must take preventative medicines, if they are even available, too?
Don’t lose sight of what the important factor is: potentially endangering others. You’re mixing up different irrelevant similarities in your argument

If you have cancer, lung disease, heart disease; you’re not implicitly endangering others, right? So the important criteria don’t apply.

For flu: in a regular flu season, where there is limited spread, and lower mortality rates, and no limited risk of major variants that could undermine everyone’s health; the same calculus doesn’t apply.

If it was pandemic flu; something with, say, a ~1% mortality rate, highly transmissible with limited inherent immunity such that it can rapidly spread and kill hundreds of thousands - I think the same logic applies. No?





Topic's author
#47
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
The left organizes itself on the basis of exceptions, and not a common sense equitable standard. They mandate, but then create exceptions, and expect this is how rights need to be administrated, when rights need no administration whatever. There are three factors that a vaccine mandate ignores, even by exception:

1. No vaccine is 100% effective, but is effective in a majority of cases.
2. There is proven natural immunity. No, this is not 100% effective, either, but effective in a majority of cases.
3. There are other therapies developed that are effective. They are not 100% effective, either, but are in a majority of cases.

People die of Covid. It is not the primary cause of death in the U.S. That distinction belongs to heart disease, a malady that happens to have a naturral remedy in 70% of cases, according to the CDC: a proper diet that lacks a constant intake of fast/junk food, but, that remedy is not a mandate, is it? Cancer cases wold be eliminated by 60% by the same choice to clean up our diet. But that's not a mandate, either. So, does government really want to ameliorate your heathcare, or does it just want to control your lives?

We already have standing statutes that help control our public interaction that, most of the time, protect the fulfillment of our rights as citizens. No, they are not a guarantee that no one will contract Covid, but the vaccines we have in play now for other diseases are not 100% effective, either, yet we use them, and allow people who do not want to take advantage of them to avoid them. Why not Covid?

Because the left has an agenda of mandated control of society that has enabled economic, religious, and educational shutdowns, demonstrated to be ineffective in preventing contraction of Covid. Yet they insist. 

Can someone give me a rational explanation why y'all still insist? No, I don't think you can, primarily because of the three factors above.

#48
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
Can someone give me a rational explanation why y'all still insist? No, I don't think you can, primarily because of the three factors above.
You literally gave the justification two posts ago. 
Topic's author
#49
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
No, neither my #43 or #45 justify a mandate.
#50
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
43 absolutely does. For exactly the reasons I specified in 44.

You objected to that characterization in 45.

I explained the issue with your argument in 46.

You then changed the subject in 47.
Topic's author
#51
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
It's an economy of scale. The risk of a non-vaccinated person transferring Covid to another is much less than the risk of an impaired person causing harm to another in the workplace, or anywhere in a public setting where the lives of others in the arena of direct cause of harm to them is the impaired person. The reason for the lowered risk is provided in my three factors in my #47, which, again, a vax mandate does not consider as credible factors.
#52
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
It's an economy of scale. The risk of a non-vaccinated person transferring Covid to another is much less than the risk of an impaired person causing harm to another in the workplace, or anywhere in a public setting where the lives of others in the arena of direct cause of harm to them is the impaired person. The reason for the lowered risk is provided in my three factors in my #47, which, again, a vax mandate does not consider as credible factors.
Theres a key bottom line you’re missing here:

You are agreeing to the inherent justification behind vaccine mandates is that it’s okay to require individuals to do things to be less of a risk to others, in order to reduce the risk to others. The disagreement is solely about the amount of tolerable risk.

Or in other words: it’s not okay for the government to require or force you to put a needle in your arm: but it is okay for the government to make you chose between a needle in your arm, and not engaging in activities or work that put others at risk: the disagreement is simply about how much risk; and the specific practicalities of how the choice is outlined.

This is what I meant by you having ignored the point: If we’re really only talking about whether those who have been infected should be subject to a mandate; and whether the probabilities of infection are sufficient to warrant it - your not a million miles away.



That’s one half of your criticism of the liberal position. About supporting vaccine mandates, and your objection to that support is more semantic than fundamental.


The second half is that of abortion; and body autonomy, which is not the same argument: that’s easily explained with another simple question.



If you agree to giving up a kidney for transplant: or having a small price of liver removed. At what point can the government decide you may no longer withdraw consent - and that you must undergo the medical procedure without your consent?








Topic's author
#53
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
your objection to that support is more semantic than fundamental.
You keep ignoring my three points that a vax mandate ignores. It isn't semantics; it's the ignorance I oppose.

If you agree to giving up a kidney for transplant...
That is and should always by my choice. What if my own health declines after I have agreed, by choice, to donate a kidney, and I now need both kidneys. No, my withdrawal denial means another life has been valued higher than mine. No, no, no, not unless it is still by my choice and not the government. Of course, to me, government needs to get the hell out of healthcare in the first place.
#54
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
You keep ignoring my three points that a vax mandate ignores. It isn't semantics; it's the ignorance I oppose.
I’m not ignoring them; I’m pointing out that it doesn’t matter whether I accept them or not for the purposes of the argument I’m making, the issue is that you’re agreeing with the underlying reasoning for mandates in that it’s okay to mandate you have taken medication in scenarios that puts others at risk; but disagree with the assessment of that risk for vaccines. 


The thread is about contradiction of the rights to body autonomy between vaccine mandates and abortion; and to a lesser degree how we can justify the mandate.

The simple answer to the second - is that you have provided the underlying justification - the only difference is one of how we have both assessed risk.

I mean - I pointed out that imperfect efficacy of the vaccine is irrelevant, I could add to that that not everyone is immune through having caught COVID, and treatments are far less effective than the vaccine; and that while the risk of individual transmission is low; the cumulative impact and variant risk is high. But tbh - it’s a different topic for a different thread.

The important part is that while we may disagree on elements of risk - we agree on the underlying justification for the same reasons. It’s not like you’re arguing epileptics should be able to operate machinery without medication, or arguing that they shouldn’t for different reasons...


That is and should always by my choice. What if my own health declines after I have agreed, by choice, to donate a kidney, and I now need both kidneys. No, my withdrawal denial means another life has been valued higher than mine. No, no, no, not unless it is still by my choice and not the government. Of course, to me, government needs to get the hell out of healthcare in the first place.
Bingo. This is exactly it. You can withdraw consent at any point; even if it leads to the death of another. 

This is exactly the justification behind being pro choice. If a woman does not consent to being pregnant; then she has the right to chose that. That a fetus dies as a result of that removal, or as the unavoidable consequence ending the pregnancy - then that’s the way it is; every bit as much as removing consent for a liver transplant may very well have lead to the unnecessary death of another.


What this illustrates however; is that the two scenarios are inherently different; they are balancing two different concerns, and other than a disagreement of how much risk needs to be involved - you’ve essentially agreed with both the vaccine mandate and pro life rationale;  there’s no inherent contradiction in coming out pro vaccine mandate and pro choice for exactly the same reason it’s not a contradiction to be pro-withdrawal-consent, and pro-epilepsy-meds-before-heavy-machinery-mandate.


#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,246
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@949havoc
The left must impose the caveat of #2 that the exception is "the natural and necessary effect of upholding right #1" in order to make sense out of right #1 by enabling its exception.  When does any right enable its exception but when the rights of another person are infringed?
There is no exception to right number 1, that’s the point of putting the caveat in #2.

Can you please give a more clear example of what exactly your issue was?

And, what, pray tell, is natural or necessary about abortion; the act of artificially ending the life of the embyro/fetus?
I didn’t say abortion was necessary, I said the effect of harming the fetus was the natural and necessary effect of the woman exercising the right to her own body.

Do you agree that we all have a right to our own body first and foremost? Yes or no?