General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHave I got this straight? Some of the very same people who say the government has no
right to make them vaccinate their children think the government absolutely has the right to make a woman carry an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy to full term?
Surely, I'm mistaken.
MontanaMama
(23,317 posts)You got it right. So angry tonight I cant see straight.
Ohiogal
(32,002 posts)pazzyanne
(6,556 posts)I have worked to hard for over 55 years to sit by when this is happening.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Who believe the government has the authority to force unwanted vaccinations on children have no right to tell people what they can and cant do with an unwanted pregnancy?
It seems like both sides of the argument have people selectively deciding when government should have the authority and when it shouldnt.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Refusing to allow your child to get vaccinations does not only put that child in immediate danger of harm or death, it also has serious and widespread dire ramifications for many, possibly hundreds or thousands of other people who had absolutely no say in the matter. The child also has no say, being completely dependent upon the parent who makes the decision for them.
A woman having an abortion is arguably in the same position as a parent not vaccinating their child, since the fetus is dependent upon the mother who has made a decision to abort and, if you believe a fetus is a human life, has put that life in danger. However, any harm that occurs ends with the fetus, which is part of the woman's body. The abortion does not physically affect anyone else and doesn't put any other lives in danger.
Government has a vested interest in protecting society from disease and epidemics, which is why vaccinations are necessary and required. Government does NOT have a vested interest in protecting society from a woman choosing not to carry a pregnancy to term and it has no business interfering with her decision.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Puts that other life in danger. If you at it that way, the argument makes sense. I dont look at it that way, but some people do.
I dont have an issue with abortions, though I think things would be easier for everyone if we could find a way to not get unwantedly pregnant. This isnt some personal responsibility shot, just a comment about making birth control more effective and widely available.
I dont have an issue with vaccinations either. I think everyone should get them unless they have a serious legitimate medical reason not to, but Id stop short of a complete government mandate.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But, as I said, unlike non-vaccinating, it doesn't endanger others in the community or put the larger society at risk.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)It essentially ends it, where as the other certainly may put many lives at risk, but may not actually harm anyone.
I know you were doing this for the sake of argument (so was I) but once you accept the premise that a fetus is a life, its extremely difficult to make a good, logical argument for abortion. The reverse is also true. Those who want to outlaw abortion dont have an argument if the fetus is not considered a life.
Some people think if they make a logical argument supporting abortion, it should convince others, but it doesnt make sense to someone who doesnt accept the same fundamental views.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)If you say that a fetus is a fully-fledged human being, then abortion is murder. If you say it isn't, then it isn't murder.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Thats the issue they need to address.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)They want to control women using the beliefs and demands of old men from centuries ago.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)For procreation. If you start with that idiotic premise, no birth control or abortions would seem logical.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Had sex about 3000 times. We have three children. Something that happens one tenth of one percent of the time is clearly not the primary reason for doing anything.
JustAnotherGen
(31,828 posts)It would prevent 100% of non Fertility Doctor assisted pregnancies.
Easiest birth control in the world.
Simplistic? Yes. Realistic?
We might be looking at that as the only option in the near future. Who knows? Anything can happen in TrumpMerica
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)But it certainly is our opposition.
The argument doesn't work well, but damned if they aren't passing laws based on it anyway.
demigoddess
(6,641 posts)religious beliefs ends at someone else's nose. If you do not believe in abortions, don't have one.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Does that argument work?
Im saying that IF you believe that life begins at conception (and the question of when life begins doesnt seem to be settled), it isnt illogical to oppose abortion.
kcr
(15,317 posts)No one's going to shoot me with their abortion.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)If you believe life starts at conception, its the exact same argument.
If you see it that way, the difference is that statistically, owning a gun is extremely unlikely to harm another life while an abortion is a certainty.
kcr
(15,317 posts)Then you should consider contacting a medical provider.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Thats what they believe. If you are trying to figure out their logic (like the OP is) you have to understand that thats the basis on which they form their opinions on abortion.
kcr
(15,317 posts)It's that they aren't independent, individual people with their own individual rights. There are lots of things that are alive without that status as well. So, what living things actually are don't matter, it's just the fact they're alive, huh? So mowing your lawn is murder?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The government has the obligation to protect the greater public's health.
Now how it applies to your backwards analogy:
In the case of vaccinations, the greater public is endangered when people refuse to get their kids vaccinated. So the government has an obligation to step in to keep the general public safe.
In the case of abortion, the government's job is to insure that the procedure is safe, but it does not tell a woman whether she should or should not get an abortion, leaving the choice up to her.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The OP is talking about do, then its logical to conclude that the government has an obligation to protect them. The OP is trying to understand the logic of those people, but they have a fundamentally different view of when life begins.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)It has no life nor existence otherwise.
I am not pro abortion, but I am for not telling a woman what she should do with her body when the decision affects only her and close family.
Resistance to vaccination regimine affects a large swath of society at large.
Personally, I wish that women that have abortions for economic reasons had the option of carrying the baby to term and giving it up for adoption, all her related expenses and healthcare costs paid for her so that she does not face economic heart ship. And if she decides to keep the baby instead of giving him or her up, she should get all the economic assistance that she needs to raise the child properly. The problem with pretty much all anti-choice people is that they are rigidly anti public assistance to those that need public assistance to live a decent life, to me that belies their pro life bullshit.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)That something has to be able to sustain itself?
That seems to be the problem, the definition is not that clear.
Again, people who start with different premises can logically end up with very different conclusions.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)Grow up having the Bible beat into me, and cant really say what that would do to ones world view.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Religious people conflate reality to their worldview, that is how a person like Trump remains popular here. Many that don't suport abortion have their daughters secretly get one when they get knocked up. You know another thing, I don't see highly deformed kids down here, they are either aborted by the bible thumpers or the few that are carried to term forgotten in a home that cares for them while the religious parents happily go about their "lives". The hyprocracy is galling.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,112 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)subjective religious beliefs. They have no right to force those particular beliefs upon the whole of society. If a clump of cells or a fetus can't exist independently of it's mother/host, it' shouldn't have legal rights independently of her.
They are not "logically" ending up with different conclusions. There is nothing logical about allowing a ridiculous superstition to inform a decision about legislation to deprive other human beings of the right to bodily autonomy.
Sorry, but fuck religious conservatives and their idiotic beliefs. They can burn in hell for all I care.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)people aren't often swayed to change their opinion by being told their's is "idiotic" or "ridiculous superstition". Sure, I don't agree with them, but if you're trying to figure out why they take certain positions (like the OP is), suggesting they shouldn't believe that because it's wrong doesn't usually provide much insight, and is a less than compelling argument. Some day, perhaps the government will have an appointed position with someone to decide what are acceptable beliefs and what are not. Hopefully, we'll have a smart person who agrees with us in that job, who can tell people their opinions are wrong.
Again, IF you believe that life begins at conception (and I don't) it's not illogical to believe that abortion is wrong. Given that there's not really a clear definition of when life begins, you'd have to convince them that they're wrong to believe this.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Also, all arguments are selectively decided (by their very nature)-- whether that selection is predicated on established science or idiocy becomes the focus.
So no... not the flip side at all.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)A matter of opinion? Sweet! Please post the established and agreed upon scientific definition here, and we can clear this all up quickly.
kcr
(15,317 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)kcr
(15,317 posts)is not an inability to support an argument. You are the one with the weak argument and you've had yours handed to you in this thread by multiple people, exposing your agenda in the meantime.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)HERE is what I've been saying over and over.
The OP is trying to understand the consistency in their beliefs because their positions do not seem logical.
This is because the OP is applying THEIR belief that a fetus is not alive until it's born.
The people the OP is trying to figure out believe that a fetus is alive at conception.
This is why the OP cannot understand the logic behind their position on abortion.
I don't agree that life begins at conception, but I can't PROVE that theyre wrong, since there doesn't seem to be a single, agreed upon definition that clarifies when life begins. Saying they are wrong doesn't make it a fact. Saying it over and over doesn't make it a fact. Restating the position intentionally wrong doesn't make it a fact. Suggesting that someone is pushing a hidden agenda, or is trolling doesn't make it a fact.
Tell me which of the things I wrote in this post is wrong.
kcr
(15,317 posts)You don't have to do that. It's DU where a vast majority of sincere members already agree. You come across as a pretty convincing pro-life loony instead. What's the point of that?
hughee99
(16,113 posts)If you want to win an argument with these pro lifers, you have to understand why they take the positions they do. I was attempting to do that here. Nothing I said should actually be news to anyone here, but given how many of you posted, it apparently was.
Im not going to argue with you in multiple sub-threads. Ive stated my position as clearly as I can in that post above. Either you can explain why its wrong, or you cant.
kcr
(15,317 posts)Maybe if you listed your pro-life expert credentials, we'd have taken you more seriously.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Ill be happy to read it.
onecaliberal
(32,861 posts)erronis
(15,275 posts)They want to control anyone who is not a WASPM (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male).
They'll play along for a while with some blacks, some latinos, some women, some non-protestants. But when putsch comes to shove, they'll try total control.
Worked well for the Nazis. For a while.
And then it didn't.
During that nightmare, and probably in our next, the whole world will suffer tremendously.
Stupid apes.
Traildogbob
(8,744 posts)Think, if you could end a pregnancy with a gun, there would be silence from the right. The cost of freedom to lose a fetus by gun.
MontanaMama
(23,317 posts)🤬
struggle4progress
(118,286 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)dflprincess
(28,078 posts)Muslims want to enact Sharia law here.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)Ferrets are Cool
(21,106 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)deformities that make them a burden to the mother for the child's life. Yet the same people that are forcing those decisions on women vote over and over to eliminate social welfare that help trapped women. So yes, it is hyprocracy of the nakedest variety.
progree
(10,908 posts)because they don't want to pay more taxes to support "those people". In effect an American genocide. Republicans are genocidal maniacs.
(And no, emergency rooms are not healthcare -- they stabilize you and then kick you back out on the street with referrals to doctors and specialists that they can't afford to see, and a fistful of prescriptions that they can't afford to fill).
I despise the hypocrisy that they don't support comprehensive Medicare For All, and just the cost for birth alone in this country, even with insurance, is insane.
IAintMissBehavin
(1 post)Correct bc emergency rooms provide healthcare, mainly to nonemergency patients but on occasion, a patient with a valid medical emergency takes precedence over patient seeking emergency treatment for an infected, ingrown toenail he's had for almost 2 weeks. These nonemergency cases, who use er like a doctor's office, are just one of many reasons healthcare costs are unaffordable for most, even the insured.
I'm genuinely curious what you think doctors should do if patient is stable and medically cleared to be discharged from er? If patient can't afford to be seen by their family physician for follow up, and fill a maximum of 3 prescriptions, then ... what? Should the doctor falsify patients charge, claiming there's valid reason to admit patient? That's more affordable? An er bill will likely be couple thousand and if not an emergency, it's certainly not more affordable than a doctor visit and prescriptions.
Doctors aren't kicking patients "onto the streets," they're discharging them from er after providing treatment. 99% will walk to their car and drive/ride home. Should we force the 1% to go to shelters? Force their families to come pick them up? Force them into assisted living? We cannot force patients to do anything unless a danger to themselves or others; it's illegal and I would face consequences. A homeless man has a right to be homeless if he chooses. If an er doctor makes a tragic mistake, misdiagnosis leading to (example) medical trauma that could've been prevented, then the patient has a right to be compensated but I'm thankful that's very rare. We don't throw patients out on the street. We're not the enemy and do our best.
Indeed healthcare shouldn't be a luxury and although social medicine has its own array of problems, it's better than not being able to afford treatment. I work in a rural hospital and see more patients abusing Medicaid coverage by waiting until they get off work to go to er for X nonemergency prob bc he didn't want to miss any work and will qualify for financial assistance, likely a write off and pay nothing - but other patients end up paying for those visits via higher costs. If he went to his physician, it could cost $30 - $40 but varies, plus miss couple hours work. I realize some truly cannot afford to miss work and pay $40 bill and it's crap situation. Medicare patients abuse er on occasion, too. Most Mon - Thurs er aren't too awful busy unless full moon (lol) but come weekends, patients who've waited until their off from work will roll in, occasionally overwhelming an er. I don't have the answers for that and except those like ingrown toenail man, it's sad situation to be in.
Hospitals charging excessive fees are partially to blame for high insurance costs, as are prescription drug companies, supply companies, etc etc.
For these reasons, we're already paying higher costs footing bills for others so why not coverage for all? If Trump would keep his ass from taking weekly vacations, his near $200 million cost to taxpayers (plus his resort charges for security = his resorts/Trump profits) would pay for some to receive medical treatment. Some is better than none and a better investment imo that it going into his narcissist, criminal piggy bank. I realize this is an exceptionally long reply but I hope a few people will read it and maybe have a better understanding of the impossibility of "fixing" private health insurance. It's not gonna happen!
BumRushDaShow
(129,052 posts)You need to get out of the rural areas and come into the cities where they ARE "throw(n) out on the streets".
ismnotwasm
(41,984 posts)We absolutely throw people out. Usually they come from there, but not always. Their are few pathways to keep people in safe environments if they dont have resources
BumRushDaShow
(129,052 posts)I have read too many heart-breaking stories where indigent and often mentally-ill patients have been loaded up in a wheelchair from ERs and then hauled to the sidewalk in front of the hospital and left there.
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)to deny treatment to people and people do in fact die because of that. The solution is to immediately repeal the 2017 giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations act and raise taxes again on corporations and billionaires. At the same time, we want to have a plan to gradually cut military spending. Then, we can either fix the Affordable Care Act by FORCING states to expand Medicaid, giving the government the power to negotiate costs down, adding a public option, and FORCING insurance companies back to the original intent of the law - not to deny treatment based on pre-existing conditions, requirement to cover everyone and so on.
OR
We could just phase in Medicare down to age 55, with the age going down each year until it is universal - with the commensurate necessary payroll tax increases.
AND
We really should be considering public banking.
I read an article yesterday about the Republican-caused deficit (from the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations) is now alarming Republicans, who had the CBO look at the costs of........wait for it............unemployment insurance. That's right! These cretins want to take away every safety net.
Problem is, even the morons among Americans, and they are legion, EXPECT the government to come to their rescue when the economy turns down. Imagine how surprised those Trump supporters will be when the bankers don't allow a stimulus because our debt is now unsustainable because of the giant tax cut for billionaires and corporations.
The new laws outlawing abortions have mobilized women.
The next recession will mobilize pretty much everyone who works.
Trump will drag the GOP to oblivion.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Texin
(2,596 posts)Saviolo
(3,282 posts)This is the same group that for years has fought tooth and nail against gay rights.
Then when Hillary was running against Trump, they loved the gays enough to say that Hillary was an enemy of the LGBTQ+ community because she took money from Saudi Arabia, and they throw gay men off of buildings there.
Then Trump held up a pride flag upside down for 30 seconds, which made him "the gay rights candidate."
Then Trump got elected and they went right back to fighting gay rights (with two cases in front of SCOTUS about whether or not nondiscrimination laws need to protect LGBTQ+, and also the new rule that married gay couples' kids don't have citizenship).
They also took money from Saudi Arabia.
So, y'know, maybe don't trust a single thing they ever say. Ever.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)Bernardo de La Paz
(49,002 posts)A fetus is not a person. Period.
keithbvadu2
(36,814 posts)The same people who rant 'freedom of religion' want the gov't to teach religion in the schools rather than let the parents decide for the family.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)Cognitive dissonance is a GOOD thing!
fescuerescue
(4,448 posts)It all comes down to what you value more.
warmfeet
(3,321 posts)Upside down world is harsh.
I would like to help make things better for everyone.
That is why I am a Democrat.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)I do know there are people that say our government (we the people) should not be able to make them vaccinate their children.
I also know there are people that think the government should be able to make a woman carry an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy to full term.
But I don't know that those are all the same people. I disagree with the people that hold each of those positions, but I don't know that the people that are against vaccinations are also against a woman's right to choose what happens with her body.
Is there any data on this?