By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ConservagameR said:
the-pi-guy said:

There was never a requirement to get a vaccine. 

OSHA was going to require either a vaccine or a test. There was always a choice.  

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?

Wow. Your point was completely blown out of the water, and you pivoted to complete nonsense. If someone chooses to have sex, that does not mean they lose the choice of anything that happens afterwards.

As for why each side can't just make up their own rules, because that's not how human rights fucking work. It's the same reason a state can't say you have to get a vaccine or you can't work anywhere. Because a) a person should not be forced to uproot their lives to exercise their basic human rights and b) not everyone is always able to leave a particular place. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 11 May 2022

Around the Network
SegaHeart said:
Rab said:

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

I got a 404.

Yeah VGChartz seems to block it, just try a Google search "abortions per country" 



JWeinCom said:
ConservagameR said:

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.

Telling you you can't go to the gym unless you get vaccinated is not forcing. It's a choice. You want to do the thing, you have to take reasonable precautions to avoid harming people around you. The government protects your right to access places of public accomodation. That is why a gym can not arbitrarily deny you membership, because the government prevents that. Those kinds of "public" places are "public" because laws force them to be. And since the government is protecting that right, there is a corrolary responsibility to not use it in such a way that will put others at risk. 

Employers have the right to fire whoever they like for mostly any reason. That includes the government's own employees, because you have no right to any particular job. At will employment. 

The government cannot make a rule that you cannot work anywhere if you are not vaccinated, and as a point of fact, they did not do so. There was no government imposed vaccine mandate on private employers, that is a boogeyman. There was a proposed vaccine or test mandate. That is not forcing, that is a choice. If you do not want to get a vaccine, you have a completely reasonable alternative available to you. That is completely and totally not forcing anyone to get a vaccine. There is no comparable alternative to carrying a pregnancy to term being suggested by anti-choice advocates.

When you have an accurate understanding of what is actually happening, there is no contradiction. 

Biden didn't mandate that businesses with more than 100 employees I believe, could only allow vaccinated workers to work? I remember him giving the speech saying he was going to. If it's illegal for the Government to force that, why would they even consider it let alone give a speech to the people about it?

As for choice, and besides a woman being impregnated against her will, how isn't contraception or abstinence a choice?



ConservagameR said:
JWeinCom said:

Telling you you can't go to the gym unless you get vaccinated is not forcing. It's a choice. You want to do the thing, you have to take reasonable precautions to avoid harming people around you. The government protects your right to access places of public accomodation. That is why a gym can not arbitrarily deny you membership, because the government prevents that. Those kinds of "public" places are "public" because laws force them to be. And since the government is protecting that right, there is a corrolary responsibility to not use it in such a way that will put others at risk. 

Employers have the right to fire whoever they like for mostly any reason. That includes the government's own employees, because you have no right to any particular job. At will employment. 

The government cannot make a rule that you cannot work anywhere if you are not vaccinated, and as a point of fact, they did not do so. There was no government imposed vaccine mandate on private employers, that is a boogeyman. There was a proposed vaccine or test mandate. That is not forcing, that is a choice. If you do not want to get a vaccine, you have a completely reasonable alternative available to you. That is completely and totally not forcing anyone to get a vaccine. There is no comparable alternative to carrying a pregnancy to term being suggested by anti-choice advocates.

When you have an accurate understanding of what is actually happening, there is no contradiction. 

Biden didn't mandate that businesses with more than 100 employees I believe, could only allow vaccinated workers to work? I remember him giving the speech saying he was going to. If it's illegal for the Government to force that, why would they even consider it let alone give a speech to the people about it?

As for choice, and besides a woman being impregnated against her will, how isn't contraception or abstinence a choice?

No he didn't, as was already explained, it was vaccine or test. Maybe you should know these things before speaking about them.

As for why contraception is not a choice, because she's already fucking pregnant Captain Hindsight. Same reason why we can't deny unvaxxed people access to hospitals if they get Covid by saying "Well you could have gotten a vaccine derf derf derf" even if I kind of wish we could. Because people don't lose their rights when they make a decision you or I disapprove of. When you invent time travel, then those are valid alternatives. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 11 May 2022

JWeinCom said:
ConservagameR said:

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?

Wow. Your point was completely blown out of the water, and you pivoted to complete nonsense. If someone chooses to have sex, that does not mean they lose the choice of anything that happens afterwards.

As for why each side can't just make up their own rules, because that's not how human rights fucking work. It's the same reason a state can't say you have to get a vaccine or you can't work anywhere. Because a) a person should not be forced to uproot their lives to exercise their basic human rights and b) not everyone is always able to leave a particular place. 

JWeinCom said:
ConservagameR said:

Biden didn't mandate that businesses with more than 100 employees I believe, could only allow vaccinated workers to work? I remember him giving the speech saying he was going to. If it's illegal for the Government to force that, why would they even consider it let alone give a speech to the people about it?

As for choice, and besides a woman being impregnated against her will, how isn't contraception or abstinence a choice?

No, as was already explained, it was vaccine or test.

As for why contraception is not a choice, because she's already fucking pregnant Captain Hindsight. Same reason why we can't deny people access to hospitals if they get Covid by saying "Well you could have gotten a vaccine derf derf derf". When you invent time travel, then those are valid alternatives. 

I'm going to assume this isn't the manner in which you typically converse with people, and that you're just having a bad day, or are taking it too personally, and am going to end the conversation here since it doesn't seem like you can compose yourself at the moment. I'd hope next time we could have a more moderate constructive dialogue.



Around the Network
ConservagameR said:
JWeinCom said:

Wow. Your point was completely blown out of the water, and you pivoted to complete nonsense. If someone chooses to have sex, that does not mean they lose the choice of anything that happens afterwards.

As for why each side can't just make up their own rules, because that's not how human rights fucking work. It's the same reason a state can't say you have to get a vaccine or you can't work anywhere. Because a) a person should not be forced to uproot their lives to exercise their basic human rights and b) not everyone is always able to leave a particular place. 

JWeinCom said:

No, as was already explained, it was vaccine or test.

As for why contraception is not a choice, because she's already fucking pregnant Captain Hindsight. Same reason why we can't deny people access to hospitals if they get Covid by saying "Well you could have gotten a vaccine derf derf derf". When you invent time travel, then those are valid alternatives. 

I'm going to assume this isn't the manner in which you typically converse with people, and that you're just having a bad day, or are taking it too personally, and am going to end the conversation here since it doesn't seem like you can compose yourself at the moment. I'd hope next time we could have a more moderate constructive dialogue.

When you assume, you make an ass of u and me. I am having a wonderful day as a matter of fact. But, I use the word fuck when I find it appropriate, and if someone puts forth a ridiculous argument, it will be treated as such. If you find that objectionable, then by all means, you are under no compulsion to engage. 



JWeinCom said:
ConservagameR said:
JWeinCom said:

Wow. Your point was completely blown out of the water, and you pivoted to complete nonsense. If someone chooses to have sex, that does not mean they lose the choice of anything that happens afterwards.

As for why each side can't just make up their own rules, because that's not how human rights fucking work. It's the same reason a state can't say you have to get a vaccine or you can't work anywhere. Because a) a person should not be forced to uproot their lives to exercise their basic human rights and b) not everyone is always able to leave a particular place. 

No, as was already explained, it was vaccine or test.

As for why contraception is not a choice, because she's already fucking pregnant Captain Hindsight. Same reason why we can't deny people access to hospitals if they get Covid by saying "Well you could have gotten a vaccine derf derf derf". When you invent time travel, then those are valid alternatives. 

I'm going to assume this isn't the manner in which you typically converse with people, and that you're just having a bad day, or are taking it too personally, and am going to end the conversation here since it doesn't seem like you can compose yourself at the moment. I'd hope next time we could have a more moderate constructive dialogue.

When you assume, you make an ass of u and me. I am having a wonderful day as a matter of fact. But, I use the word fuck when I find it appropriate, and if someone puts forth a ridiculous argument, it will be treated as such. If you find that objectionable, then by all means, you are under no compulsion to engage. 

Well you didn't exactly sell me on the assumption, and I'm also not sure why asking questions is ridiculous.

Since this is normal response etiquette for you as you say it is, I'll be sure to steer clear from now on, as I also like to complete wonderful days.



ConservagameR said:
JWeinCom said:

When you assume, you make an ass of u and me. I am having a wonderful day as a matter of fact. But, I use the word fuck when I find it appropriate, and if someone puts forth a ridiculous argument, it will be treated as such. If you find that objectionable, then by all means, you are under no compulsion to engage. 

Well you didn't exactly sell me on the assumption, and I'm also not sure why asking questions is ridiculous.

Since this is normal response etiquette for you as you say it is, I'll be sure to steer clear from now on, as I also like to complete wonderful days.

Asking questions is not ridiculous. Asking ridicuolous ones is. Why abstinence is not a choice for a pregnant woman is an example of such a question and I had a great time answering it with appropriate snark. If you didn't have as much fun as I did, again, no compulsion to engage.




 

JWeinCom said:

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

I did catch the lenghty message you deleted. Just in case you decide to repost, my example of dna-sample to determine fatherhood is how it works in my country. It wasn't a wacky analogy but an example of a situation where to rights overlap and lawmakers can decide to limit another right in a specific situation. There are other examples as well.

My intention also wasn't to cherry pick some of your points. Questions like what about rape victims etc. are of course valid, it's just that we've had these discussions in my country and we've had a well-functioning law and system about it for decades. So I thought I won't bother with those as my point was from the begin with that your analogies were deeply flawed. 

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?

This is where I get confused. Legal distinction here is a 24-week old fetus, and it's partly based on factual distinction. Rest of your questions are again suggesting that there can't be a legal difference between a fetus and a born human, even though this is the case in many countries. Maybe in US it isn't possible to make a legal distinction then, I don't know but I find it odd.

Is this really an ongoing debate in US? That if you don't have to donate an organ to somebody, then a mother doesn't have to use her body to grow a baby? To me that's going into extremes, but teh freedom and bodily autonomy, right?

Last edited by KiigelHeart - on 11 May 2022

Republicans will not rest until we are literally living The Handmaid’s Tale.