No, I do not support mandatory vaccinations. I do not support the government being able to force you to put anything into your body you object to. However, there were no mandatory vaccinations. There were restrictions on where you could go if not vaccinated. Nobody had to get vaccinated.

There is a clear principle here that leads to consistent results. It is generally unquestioned that the government can in many circumstances restrict where a person may go, and what they may do, if there is a threat to a third party. I was not able to teach without verification that I did not pose a threat to children. I was not able to go to college without a vaccine record. You cannot travel to school zones with guns. You cannot fly without submitting to searches and verifying your identity. If I am at risk of spreading a deadly disease, I can be restricted from public places. This was perfectly consistent with established law. We could get into the intricacies of when a restriction is so severe that it amounts to coercion, but we have principles, cases, and laws we could use to make those determinations. 

Whether the fetus has a reasonable chance of life is not a legal distinction. It is a factual distinction, but why does that change the legal analysis? What is the underlying principle? When we have to use our body to preserve another viable life we must? I am undoubtedly a viable human life, but neither of my parents have to use their bodies to keep me alive against my consent. Could we force them to give a blood transfusion? Could we have forced my mother to give me a blood transfusion when I was a minute old?

Yes, we must consider the impacts of a law, and they have to be interpreted in such a way that would lead to consistent results. That's how law works here. Lower courts have to follow the rationale of the courts above them, so if a decision is made in one case, its rationale has to be applied in another case. So, they have to make sure decisions on whether a law is valid or not based not only on the direct results of one case, but the potential results in other cases. As a lawyer, that's what I'm literally training to do. Believe me or not, that's generally the way we figure out whether laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. If the law is constructed in a way that it would technically allow the government to force me to give a kidney, and we allow that law to pass, then we have to trust the government not to use that power, because legally, we cannot stop them from making that law. And this isn't a fantasy, it literally happens every day. People die in a hospital, they are not organ donors, and we do not take their organs, and people die on waiting lists, because we have decided that bodily autonomy is so important that we will protect it, even for the dead. If we decide preservation of a viable human being is more important than bodily autonomy, I can see no reason why we should not have mandatory organ donations on death. That actually seems far more reasonable to me, as there is only one living person's interest to consider. So, if protecting viable human lives is a duty that overrides bodily autonomy why should we not use organs from dead family members of someone on a transplant list, or just a dead person in general?

Or, if you want to get to a much more obvious example, if we decide viability is the determination of whether or not it's ok, what about cases of rape? Can a rape victim be prevented from aborting in the 25th week? If viability is out main concern it is hard to say why the fact that it was conceived in being rape should matter. And, what about a 15 week limit, as is the case in the Supreme Court case? If the fetus at 15 weeks is deemed to be perfectly healthy and will to a high degree of medical certainty be viable, why wouldn't that be enough, even if it is not viable at that moment?  Or suppose there is a serious birth defect, but the child will be born alive. If we say viability is the determining factor, then how can you say that a child which will be born with a serious defect can be aborted? That would just be saying that those born with birth defects are less deserving of life, which raises serious legal and moral questions. This is not hypothetical, creating a law with no principle grounding it, or a flawed principle grounding it raises obvious and real problems. I'm sorry that you don't like analogies, but this is the US Politics topic, and the US is a common law system which is all about analogies.

"Yes I'm saying a government has a right to 'force' a mother to carry a baby. It also has a right to force a man to take a dna-test if he denies his fatherhood. Possibly force you to save your child's life with 30min imaginary treatment. It should be looked into once it's reality, maybe it gets too difficult to come up with intelligent laws but I don't like extremes either."

The only standard here is apparently your judgment. That is not how laws work, because if it's just what you, or I, or anyone else feels is right, then there are going to be situations where we disagree. The purpose of law is to resolve those situations. If you can't think of an intelligible principle for the law, then tough shit, you can't make that law.

As for the tl:dr part, you are effectively saying that laws do not have to correspond to any rights, principles, reason, or rationale. If the government feels like making a law about abortion, they can do so, regardless of whether or not they could come up with a rationale which would apply to other situations. We can have different rights for pregnant women than those that apply in any other situation, hence "fuck pregnant women". 

Fortunately, that's not the way things work. People have rights. Some of the most important among those being bodily autonomy and security in one's person, the ability to make medical decisions, and the right to decide what goes into our body. You can not say we have those rights, but the government can make any exception they want for any particular circumstance on a whim. Then, they are no longer rights.  It's hard to make laws. That's the fucking point. That is what protects our rights.

You are failing at every possible opportunity to provide any underlying reason behind any law that should be accepted besides "well I like the outcome in this situation" or "well I don't like the outcome in this situation". That kind of system is completely and utterly fucked. Let me know when you could come up with an actual rationale because I am completely uninterested in any individual opinion on abortion except the mother's in any given case.

A bit arrogant to think there aren't any underlying principles when it comes to law (including abortion law) in Finland or other countries that have a similar laws. I'm flattered you serm to think standard of our law is MY judgment though, thanks.

The basic idea is a right to live. Now this might sound like anti-abortion stance but it isn't. The problem has been that a child doesn't have full human rights until birth, but the fetus also deserves to be protected somehow even though it's impossible to make a clear distinction when it actually becomes a human. But as mentioned by others, it's still life. There are two things to consider, rights of a mother and rights of a fetus and going into extremes with either one of them is problematic. There's also a medical risk of late abortions to consider.

Why this doesn't compare to your whatabout examples is that the fetus is inside of a woman but isn't her organ or body. It is a life on its own, but cannot or is unlikely to survive on its own. I tried to tell you in my first post that this is an unique situation but you doubled down with your arm IV situation. Which is completely hypothetical and no matter how hard you try to spin it, it doesn't compare here either. Pregnancy isn't 'saving a life' in the same sense as your example. It would be another thing if a woman was forced to, let's say take medication that's dangerous to her to save the fetus. 

I was never saying a government can make any exception they want to our right. What I meant was the opposite. We have laws what they can do, and they can not start spinning an abortion law to justify someone to donate blood for example. A process to make or alter a law on abortion is a long one of course and it needs to be based Basic rights and so on. There needs to be a rationale behind it. 

Like the dna-test to tell if a man is a father or not. We have a right to bodily autonomy but a child has a right to a father and the father has responsibilities to a child. So a man's bodily autonomy can be violated and bloodtest taken because child's rights are more important.

Actually, going to end it here for now, cause I have studying to do. May repost later.

Generally speaking the same "pro-Life" people are against socialised healthcare, reconcile that...

An American reacts to British citizens told how much it costs to get healthcare in the US :/

Well during covid it was about as close to forced as you get, without physically forcing people, to use their body to keep someone else alive. Someone you have no connection to whatsoever at that. Not like your own flesh and blood inside you.

Now whether or not you deem a fetus a living worthy body vs someone who's been born, plays into that as to whether you even find that comparable.

Also whether or not you see mandating people out of public and private spaces, as well as their jobs, for not getting vaccinated, as forcing them.

All I know is that this abortion thing in the US right now makes no sense to me.

I don't know how the people who seem to be the one's who wanted to force people to get vaccinated, are seemingly the same one's who want to give people a choice when it comes to abortion.

I also don't know how the people who seem to be the one's who didn't want to have to be vaccinated, are seemingly the same one's who don't want to give people the choice of abortion.

How both sides see things like this is beyond me. It seems totally backwards and contradictory to the way they should see it as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't get vaccinated, but I did always mask and sanitize even though I didn't want to. I also didn't go out anymore than I really had to, unless it was a rare private gathering where everyone had an understanding.

I'm only partially for abortion because I look at it like money lost I guess you could say.

If you gamble your life savings away, you have to deal with the problem you caused yourself, but if someone commits a crime against you like identity theft and takes your money, then you should be able to get it back.

If you gamble with your body, you have to deal with the problem you caused yourself, but if someone commits a crime against you like rape, you should be able to get your old life back (minus the trauma perhaps).

That's putting it very generally. There's other situations where abortion would seem more acceptable as well. I'm not completely for or against it, just like how I wasn't completely for or against covid mandates. Or better put, even though I'd rather not follow all the covid mandates, I still did follow some and did some extra, just like how I don't prefer abortion, but can see the usefulness of options, like woman who've been wronged for example.

To me it makes the most sense for the states to be able to decide what they want to accept or reject, and that way instead of there being only wide open abortion, or no abortion at all, each state can decide and most people can get their way. That seems the best compromise to me anyway since both sides seem pretty adamant about it.

Ok, but no doubt the anti abortion reply to that would be there was always a choice not to partake in procreation. 

That doesn't take everything into account though, like rape, but that would get a blind eye turned to it, like those who were for strict mandates and didn't care about people's choice.

What I don't get is why both sides don't just make their own rules where they reside for the most part, and leave the Federal Government out of forcing everyone to either accept or reject it. Why not give options since both sides can't seem to find a middle ground?

The option is every person having the option to safely abort a pregnancy if they want/need to. Don't like abortions? Don't get one. One side is specifically trying to take away options, the other is trying to provide options.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country 

Yet as to my point about vaccinations, there was no choice for many. Get vaccinated or be separated from society or lose your job. Sometimes both. 

Now one side looked to be saying, well that's still an option, so the other side could easily say, so is abstinence.

Both sides don't seem to be happy with that though.

I realize the country isn't equally divided geographically, but smaller portions is easier to slice up than the whole country as one. There is no way to do it so that everyone is pleased, only a majority. That way if abortion is that big an issue for someone, they would have the option to go somewhere where they could get an abortion vs potentially having no option, and those against abortion can go somewhere where they can separate themselves from it.

Getting a vaccine helps, assuming it helps the receiver as well. If the person getting injected has a somewhat to severe negative reaction, then they're not helping society by hurting themselves. You also couldn't say, well that's just a minority so it's ok, because the same can be said for abortions.

Sure it does. Less child birth in the US has led to more immigration than would otherwise, which is another clash both sides seem to have. It also devalues human potential. A fetus is the beginning of infinite potential and if you put a stop to that then you're basically saying that only one known or planned outcome is ever acceptable. We don't live in a world like that, and I don't think many people want to live in a world like that, do they?