U.S. judge blocks enforcement of near-total abortion ban in Texas

No confusion...bodily autonomy means no one can force another to use their body to sustain their life.

That means no one can force another to give them a kidney or blood transfusion.

That means that a fetus can\'t force a woman to use her entire body to sustain it's life.


NO one is being forced to be vaccinated....and I wouldn't care if they were because it's a matter of public safety.

Side note:NO one but the pregnant woman is affected if she gets an abortion.

LOTS of people can be affected, and infected, if others aren't vaccinated...it affects society...

 

The priority of a woman getting out of an pregnancy isn't necessarily a justification for the State to grant an authority or a privilege to abortion. Nor does her priority mean that she alone has autonomy and men(who don't get pregnant) lack said self bodily autonomy(which would be the only coherent argument left.)

When the Left decided on a nationwide mandate, and even more compulsion for failing to comply, the left gave up the argument that preserved roe v wade for the last 50+ years. You cannot logically have it both ways, regardless of how justified it would be for women to keep said access.

The key overriding principle is logic, not necessarily whether abortion should be legal or not. If the left believes "my body, my choice", that autonomy cannot be selectively decided by the whims of the State, regardless of a compelling interest. Otherwise, again, the state becomes the owner of autonomy and that might be worse for you than old white conservatives down the line.

It's real simple: Either we all have autonomy, or none at all. That's my argument against the State's overreach and the overlapping cases. Thanks President Biden.

 

That's the way it is now...the argument should have ended with RvW except politicians need votes from one issue voters..

 

Another radical liberal judge over-reaching with no grounds or foundation.

 

You really don't see the conflict there?

Except the baby

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
bodily autonomy means no one can force another to use their body to sustain their life.

LOTS of people can be affected, and infected, if others aren't vaccinated...it affects society..

There is no conflict. You really don't see the facts?

There is no "baby" involved in abortion.

 

It will now go to the 5th circuit who will overturn this over reaching slug that Obama put on the bench.

 

It's funny that you'd say that given you don't actually know, or understand the law in the US. And frankly neither did this Obama appointee who will now be overturned by the circuit court of appeals.

 

What is good news? The ongoing genocide of minorities in the US via abortion?

 

Long time, but this needs to be rebutted. So your argument for removing bodily autonomy in the case of the vaccinations is that others can be affected, whereas abortion only affects the pregnant woman(meanwhile, while the baby cannot impose itself on a woman's autonomy, the state can impose itself on people's autonomy(but let's just cut the chaff and say men, given that the vaccinations will affect both and only one of these is gender specfic)

I hope you realize the inherent bias in your argument. And the conclusion that it leads to. If only women can exercise their autonomy to the right of an abortion, but men cannot exercise their autonomy via the mandates, we have even more than before, an unequal principle of laws relating to the two sexes.

For the left's mandate to exist and coside with a pure freedom for abortion, means that as a whole, men get further shafted. Sure women are mandated for the vaccine just the same, but in the one area(health) where a person(and a male) has control, that control has been stripped from him, whereas women now have more control over themselves.

My argument to be clear isn't that women should have less control, but that this argument in of itself will only further classify men as second class citizens to women.

 

Nope, wrong.... no one is forced to use their body to sustain the life of another. YOU cannot be forced to give a blood transfusion, a kidney, an eye or any other body part to sustain the life of another....and women don't have to do that either.

Your confusion over the two issues is obvious.

It's equal, men can have an abortion any time they choose to.

It's not about gender.....but righties sue care about equality if they think men are getting the shaft

 

Then by your own standard, getting a vaccination to "sustain the life of another" violates your own principle here. If I don't have to support another's life, non vaccinated folks are simply complying with your own standard of play. If mandatory vaccination is a requirement for public safety, there is no distance between that argument and being forced to use their bodies to sustain the life of another. None. Glad you agree with that.

 

That number is extremely small. The vast majority of women who choose an abortion express a positive feeling about it, as time passes…

https://www.healthline.com/health-n...men-say-they-do-not-regret-having-an-abortion

 

Of course there's callousness as time passes, that's true for any tragic event in our lives. But should we promote this as a behavioral choice just because it comes with no long term consequences?

 

“Just because”…?? I wasn’t “promoting” anything. The point of my statement was to simply disprove the BS that women suffer from depression after an abortion…

 

Silly attempt at equivalence….you might as well argue that road speed laws are ‘imposed’ on people as a means of “sustaining the lives of others”…gets a bit ridiculous…

 

So let's tackle this. Yes, we do impose some restrictions(such as speed limits or even seat belts(though I argue that seat belts is better for the subjective terms in which abortion/vaccines both fall under.) But in most cases, these restrictions are A: universal and b: for the public's general benefit(in my worldview, for it to be the public's benefit, the State shouldn't care or have an interest regardless.)

In the case of vaccination however, there is no tangible public interest or benefit. There is a perceived benefit, but it's not in fact(ie: it's not proven that everyone will get covid-19. It's also not proven that everyone will spread covid-19. Otherwise, there should be a lot more people with the virus.)

I do not argue against the merits of preventive medicine, nor do I argue against a treatment if you want to go for it. But the whole principle of autonomy is to be consistent. The argument that compels our national interest today, exists because of a lack of moral consistency within application of the law. Thanks President Biden.

 

Can you explain this "fundamental right to privacy" for me? What "fundamental right to privacy" do I have? Is seems the government invades my privacy routinely and the Dems are pushing to do so even more like with their new IRS proposals. So what exactly is this "right to privacy"?

Or is it really just a "fundamental right to abortion" to kill your unborn baby?

 

.
NO part of your body is used ...

I'll never agree to anything you post since it's always wrong..

...and I suggest you actually look up what happens to women during pregnancy....it is no where near, or can be compared to,, what happens when you get a shot in the arm as you had to when you were a child and got vaccinations for measles, TB, etc.

 

So the moniker "right to privacy" actually only means "right to kill the unborn child"
And the moniker "right to bodily autonomy" only means "right to kill the unborn child"

 

The SC ruling was based on privacy issues. Why not just google the ruling on Roe vs Wade?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Supreme_Court_decision

 

No one has ever truly defined personhood adequately enough to include a group of cells multiplying in a womb. Sorry but the presence of life is not a definition, it is merely the presence of life. A human being is far more complicated than cell division.

 

Yeah, your pipe dream will never happen.

 

Yeah, cause I'm sure an anonymous poster such as yourself knows far more regarding law than Judges. LOL

 

Actually, our bodies are composed of 85% water(which is by definition cellular.) We are largely cellular/blood with our skeletal frame being little more than a protective shield.