Roe v Wade Hypocrisy With Conservatives

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 26
Topic's author
#1
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,702
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
"The government can't force me to take a vaccine! Freedom of my body"

Also Conservatives...

"Roe v Wade should be overturned! Free the children."

Still is my biggest problem with the Conservative party. Fight so hard for lower government restrictions yet fight to overturn Roe v Wade. Especially with the vaccine stuff they preached, hypocrisy.

#2
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Well, if you want the Roe-Wade to be overturned, then you are pro-life.

In my opinion, if opinions are solely self-generated and they are all logically consistent, I would imagine that pro-gun and pro-war people are pro-choice, because they are pro-personal rights. Pro-restriction, anti-war and pro-vaxMandates is more a line with pro-life, as they are all pro-whole-humanity.

I don't understand it.
#3
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,747
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Vader
Still is my biggest problem with the Conservative party. Fight so hard for lower government restrictions yet fight to overturn Roe v Wade. Especially with the vaccine stuff they preached, hypocrisy.
Does preventing the deaths of thousands of babies, mainly black ones, justify government restriction on abortion? I would agree yes.

The main problem is that this should be a state issue, not a federal one. The justification for a federal limit on abortion is one grounded in mental gymnastics and frankly a non-scientific basis.

Roe v Wade and PP v Casey is set on arbitrary terms that scientists don’t even agree on. Life either begins at conception or when the baby comes out of the mother, not at 20 weeks or wherever the limit is right now. There’s no middle ground. Which side do you want to be a part of?

My body my choice doesn’t apply when your body isn’t in question. You have no right to harm the body of another distinct human being.


#4
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
I don't think that's the actual argument for most pro-life advicates. Conservatives who say, "My body my choice," are simply trying to point out a perceived hypocrisy in the pro-abortion crowd.

Of course, the problem with arguments like these from both sides is that they don't address the actual issue - when does life begin.
#5
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
The exact same accusation can be made of liberals. This seeming contradiction is because conservatives, generally, believe in an internal locus of control, while liberals generally believe in an external locus of control. So to a right winger health is more or less a choice, whereas to leftists it is just something that happens to you. This leads to right wingers wishcasting that covid isn't a big deal, that they don't need a vaccine, etc. And it results in liberals pretending that pregnancy is just something that happens and is imposed upon women instead of being the result of their own decisions. Of course, COVID IS just something that happens to you while pregnancy is a predictable outcome of choosing to have sex. 

The positions of each side aren't actually that contradictory imo once you realize what the beliefs are that are actually motivating their opinions
#6
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Vader
Babykilling, vs forced suspicious injection by government.
Is how some conservatives view it, I imagine.

Some conservatives are 'very open to people living their own lives, not being interfered with, so long as they aren't interfering with others.
There's also the issue where a number of individuals are doubtful about the 'need for a vaccine and the danger of Covid.

Bit random article, don't feel a need to click it, bit unrelated.

#7
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,579
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Vader
and thats why conservatives need to drop the "small government" bullshit
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Does preventing the deaths of thousands of babies, mainly black ones, justify government restriction on abortion? I would agree yes.
But then we would have even more fatherless babies. Does the Black Community need more of that?
#9
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Good point. While we're at it, why don't we kill some fatherless children to illeviable stress from the black community? 
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
The mothers are strong and independent enough.
#11
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,747
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The mothers are strong and independent enough.
Not everyone can be Stacy Abrams, Governor of Georgia, elected 2018.
#12
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Vader
If you’re pro-life, then abortion is considered literally murdering a baby.

Do you think that not getting a vaccine is the moral equivalent of murder? If they aren’t, I don’t see what the issue is.
#13
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Greyparrot
But if they're not, then they can kill their children? 

10 days later

#14
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Do you think that not getting a vaccine is the moral equivalent of murder? If they aren’t, I don’t see what the issue is.
This is like asking if first degree murder is the same as negligent homicide. Sure the former feels so much worse, but the end result is still the needles loss of life.
#15
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
This is like asking if first degree murder is the same as negligent homicide. Sure the former feels so much worse, but the end result is still the needles loss of life.

Which is why it is smart for at-risk people to get it because it is worth it for them (assuming they don't have medical conditions that prevent them from doing so).

But as far as vaccines protecting other people, I could be wrong, but I have not seen strong evidence to that conclusion nor have I seen that it greatly decreases the chance of getting/therefore spreading the disease like vaccines tend to do for diseases that don't mutate quickly.

So as far as this abortion/vaccine equivalence goes, they just seem to be on entirely different planets for me. One is protecting yourself, and the other is harming another person. I'm sure you disagree with the harming another regarding abortion part, but conservatives generally would agree with that. That's why I'm a little shocked that they're trying to make these types of arguments.
#16
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@bmdrocks21
Last month unvaccinated individuals were 5.8 times more likely to contract Covid than those who were vaccinated, which means 5.8 times more likely to expose someone else to Covid. So getting vaccinated is about more than just personal protection. My body my choice doesn’t cut it, not as long as you continue to go out and interact with society.

#17
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Double_R
Last month unvaccinated individuals were 5.8 times more likely to contract Covid than those who were vaccinated, which means 5.8 times more likely to expose someone else to Covid. So getting vaccinated is about more than just personal protection. My body my choice doesn’t cut it, not as long as you continue to go out and interact with society.

Assuming there is no bias in the data (ex. Unvaccinated people have less mild symptoms and therefore get tested more, no over-reporting of deaths linked to COVID, etc), then I think there is a somewhat reasonable argument there.

But it seems frighteningly subjective for choosing at what point you can tell people they can’t interact with society if they don’t get it (ex. being fired)

I think there can be a point at which you can require vaccines, I just don’t think this is the one. Polio and small pox had about a 30% death rate. So definitely require those.

Based on the data of us having 50.2 million infections and 799k deaths, that’s just under 1.6%. 
#18
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,146
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Frederick Trump, the president's grandfather, became one of the first people to die during the first wave of the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918 .
I bet he would have liked to have a vaccine for it like they have now.
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,040
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Based on the data of us having 50.2 million infections..

That we know of since the vaccinated rarely get tested and it doesn't stop viruses from spreading.
#21
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think there can be a point at which you can require vaccines, I just don’t think this is the one. Polio and small pox had about a 30% death rate. So definitely require those.
Those vaccines were also effective over an extremely long period of time. If the Covid vaccine made someone immune for life I would be more open to mandates. Instead, it’s only been rolled out a year and some people have already had two boosters. I think a big part of this is people freaking out over cases, though, and the tests pick up a lot of asymptomatic cases. But it’s utterly absurd to try and organize society around a vaccination campaign requiring 4+ shots a year 

The vaccines are amazingly effective at preventing hospitalization and death, about as good as one could reasonably ask for given how quickly they were developed. It’s why I don’t believe that the unvaccinated are a serious threat to the vaccinated. If you listen to the rhetoric of the people pushing vaccine mandates and stuff it’s so obvious that what’s actually motivating them is the desire to punish people for doing something they believe is socially/morally unacceptable 
#22
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
I think a big part of this is people freaking out over cases, though, and the tests pick up a lot of asymptomatic cases. 
Omicron is a good example of this. From all the evidence so far it seems that it’s extremely contagious and far more mild than previous strains. It’s almost perfect for getting antibodies into the remaining unvaccinated and non previously infected population without killing them. I never understood freaking about Covid once there were vaccines available (or even before that if you weren’t old or ill) but it’s clearly so close to being behind us now. But I think a lot don’t see that because they are fixated on case numbers 
#23
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,278
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Someone who’s unvaccinated clearly doesn’t take Covid seriously, so what would make you think they are more likely to get tested?
#24
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@thett3
Those vaccines were also effective over an extremely long period of time
I agree that that is also an important point. I believe I referenced that in my precious post.

But let’s say hypothetically that COVID had a 30% death rate and mutated quickly. It would still probably be a good idea to mandate it.

In my opinion, the best response is likely to address both of those ideas: how many shots are required and how deadly is it?

This is a case where a low percentage of people die and you need multiple boosters per year to be “fully vaccinated”. So assuming it is correct that unvaccinated people are more likely to spread it, I can understand the argument for mandates, I just don’t think we should have one
#25
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,294
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Vader
Decreasing government influence is not the conservative ideology and has not been for quite some time. It is instead a tactic they sometimes use to achieve some of the goals of their actual ideologies.

21 days later

#26
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@ILikePie5

Does preventing the deaths of thousands of babies, mainly black ones, justify government restriction on abortion? I would agree yes.
At present there is no state interest I can think of with enough weight to override a woman's fundamental rights of privacy, bodily integrity and self-determination. If fertilized eggs and embryos are recognized as separate persons under the law, then every pregnant woman would be subject to others seeing her medical records or undergoing forced medical procedures against her will. Pregnant women would lose the freedom to determine their own lives; to choose things like what to eat, how to exercise or even where to go. Look at Alabama v. Jones. There is no point in pregnancy where a woman should ever lose her civil rights.


The main problem is that this should be a state issue, not a federal one.
Should slavery have been left up to the states too?


The justification for a federal limit on abortion is one grounded in mental gymnastics and frankly a non-scientific basis. Roe v Wade and PP v Casey is set on arbitrary terms that scientists don’t even agree on. Life either begins at conception or when the baby comes out of the mother, not at 20 weeks or wherever the limit is right now. There’s no middle ground. Which side do you want to be a part of?
Nobody disputes that life begins at conception. It's about determining the status of rights among the living at different stages of human development. Every single one of our rights designations is completely arbitrary. Why do people become legal adults with full citizenship rights at age 18? We literally just  made that up. And we made up every single other qualification of legal rights and to whom they apply as well.

It makes sense to choose a benchmark for when fetal rights kick in just like we do with everything else.  There is no exact science. Immigrants' rights don't kick in until certain conditions are met -  proof that simply being human does not mean that everyone has the same legal status. Some logical proposals for when fetal rights begin include when it reaches a certain level of consciousness (~26 weeks) or when it can live by itself outside the womb (~ 22 weeks). To say that all humans should have the exact same rights and status at all times from the time they are conceived to the time they die is simply not a logical position.

Over time, new types of fetal surgery and other medical and scientific breakthroughs will raise more questions about the legality of abortion. For instance they're working on artificial wombs right now which is gonna make a ton of waves. There is no black and white when it comes to this issue. For instance if someone does IVF and discards the extra embryos (since they always retrieve and fertilize a bunch of eggs to send for genetic testing) does that mean the woman is a murderer? Obviously not, yet that's the position you would have to take to be consistent. 


My body my choice doesn’t apply when your body isn’t in question. You have no right to harm the body of another distinct human being.
What about someone in a vegetative state or similar circumstance? That's another "arbitrary" designation where consciousness is used as a standard for when taking a  human's life becomes a moral and/or legal option. 

You have no right to dictate the medications or procedures that another person chooses to have done on their body whether they are pregnant or not. And if a fetus is a person, it should be entitled to things like child support, due process and citizenship. Arresting a pregnant woman would be a rights violation. After all it's illegal to detain someone without arraignment or trial. A fetus has not committed a crime and not been charged, so being a totally separate and distinct entity from the mother with rights of its own, it would be illegal to incarcerate a pregnant woman since doing so would confine a second person without due process. Right? 

Anyway, I know you're aware that I started the baby making process. I've always been pro choice, but after some personal experiences this year I will say that I am now emphatically pro choice. Maybe we'll talk more about it some other time. I don't anticipate spending a lot of time on DART. I just feel really strongly about this topic.