Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Government vaccine mandates and abortion restrictions


Recommended Posts

Is there a tension between being against government vaccine and mask mandates, while favoring abortion restrictions (or vice versa)? In what ways are there similarities and in what wats are they different? Requiring masks and vaccines protects others (particularly the most vulnerable in society) from dying - either directly through disease spread, or indirectly through hospital crowding, degradation of care. 

Is there a significant difference? 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I keep hearing the "my body, my choice" thing used by people who are anti-abortion to support their mask and vaccine beliefs, but either that's true and abortion should be legal, or it's not true and they shouldn't use it as a reason the government can't mandate those things.  They want it both ways but they can't have it both ways.  No matter how it's interpreted, they are essentially making fun of themselves when they say it.

They think they are being clever but all I hear is a huge double standard that shows they are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

I don't think it's usually meant seriously as an apologetic for their position; rather, I think it's usually invoked to point out the inconsistency of abortion advocates (my body, my choice) suddenly being all for "your body, my choice" on other issues. 

I think you are right that it's meant to be clever, but I don't think it's used as a serious argument. 

Link to comment

One difference is that (barring instances of rape) a pregnant person went out of their way to perform an action whose natural consequence has long been understood as changing their state from not-pregnant to pregnant.  By contrast, a person who chooses not to mask or not to vaccinate is merely continuing to exist in the same state they’ve always existed.

Governments have historically been very willing to restrain the taking of life, but less willing to constrain the preservation of it.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Legal abortion necessarily results in the death of a person without that person's consent, whereas the other (compulsory immunization) does not.  That's a difference.

The difference is that the latter is only possibly going to lead to the death of another person and also potentially death and injuries to many more.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I keep hearing the "my body, my choice" thing used by people who are anti-abortion to support their mask and vaccine beliefs, but either that's true and abortion should be legal, or it's not true and they shouldn't use it as a reason the government can't mandate those things.  They want it both ways but they can't have it both ways.  No matter how it's interpreted, they are essentially making fun of themselves when they say it.

They think they are being clever but all I hear is a huge double standard that shows they are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

They do it because they are stupid.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

A positive mandate, like a vaccine mandate, requires people to undergo a procedure at the government's behest, in the name of the people.

Appreciate the thoughtful post. One clarification, doesn’t this break down when many abortion restrictions amount to requiring medical procedures at the governments behest? Like requiring showing a woman a vaginal ultrasound?

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Appreciate the thoughtful post. One clarification, doesn’t this break down when many abortion restrictions amount to requiring medical procedures at the governments behest? Like requiring showing a woman a vaginal ultrasound?

That's a good point. I suppose I should ask whether there's a distinction between procedures that are intended to be observational in nature (such as vaginal ultrasounds) and procedures intended to alter the functioning of the patient's body (everything from vaccinations to surgeries to neo-Malthusian sterilization horror stories.) Certainly observational procedures can still be invasive, but it still seems like they aren't intended to produce a long-term change and thus are somewhat different. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But doesn’t that perceived inconsistency cut both ways? Unless those protestors are pro choice? 

I don't think very many people are absolutely libertarian on "my body, my choice," so I would agree that there is enough inconsistency to go around. ;) 

I still think that intended, targeted and nearly 100% death (abortion) might be different than possible, but nowhere near 100% certainty of death if one passes on Coronavirus to someone. So, I think the moral imperatives and public interest in each mandate is different when politics is stripped away from it (if politics can be stripped away from it). 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Good, I don’t even see how this can realistically be challenged without tearing down the requirements for other vaccines like polio or measles.

Unless the personal exemptions are different than other vaccines. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, what sort of limiting principle would you propose?  If the government can mandate masks and vaccines under your rationale, it can also mandate . . . well, pretty much anything at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

First appreciate your thoughtful reply. I haven't proposed a rationale, but there does seem to be a tension between the two for me. As for limiting principles? Good question, but in all cases - mask wearing, vaccines and abortion, you are impinging on the rights of one individual to protect the health/life (and rights) of another individual. So anything at all seems a bit of a stretch.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

California allows no exemptions (religious or otherwise). If you want to use public schools you vaccinate.

Then, only having a very basic understanding of law, I could understand how it could be challenged.  

I wish that 95% of people would get vaccinated.  I'm having stress over my future son-in-law not being vaccinated for several reasons.  I'm good with medical and travel businesses requiring them as long as they have some good exemptions.  I think requiring it of children who legally have to go to school with no exemptions is another thing and would be really surprised if a good challenge wasn't made against it.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Rain said:

Then, only having a very basic understanding of law, I could understand how it could be challenged.  

I wish that 95% of people would get vaccinated.  I'm having stress over my future son-in-law not being vaccinated for several reasons.  I'm good with medical and travel businesses requiring them as long as they have some good exemptions.  I think requiring it of children who legally have to go to school with no exemptions is another thing and would be really surprised if a good challenge wasn't made against it.

Perhaps against a non-fda approved vaccine like Covid , but California and four other states have had a no-exemption policy for years. 

 

Edit: It appears they do allow limited medical exemptions (just no personal/religious exemptions):

https://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-california-legislature-expected-to-pass-tough-vaccination-law-20150628-story.html

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Perhaps against a non-fda approved vaccine like Covid , but California and four other states have had a no-exemption policy for years. 

Ahh. I live in the land of anything goes exemptions it feels sometimes.  I think there are some really good reasons for exemptions sometimes - like allergies and even true religious beliefs, but sometimes I wonder why there is a mandate for vaccines given some of the personal exemptions.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

First appreciate your thoughtful reply. I haven't proposed a rationale, but there does seem to be a tension between the two for me. As for limiting principles? Good question, but in all cases - mask wearing, vaccines and abortion, you are impinging on the rights of one individual to protect the health/life (and rights) of another individual. So anything at all seems a bit of a stretch.

Well, look at wearing masks.  If the government can force you to do X by saying "We are doing this to protect other people," then what else can the government force us to do, or not do, under the justification of the government "protect{ing} other people?" 

Prohibting religious meetings, despite the First Amendment?  Yep.  While also allowing/endorsing protests and social gatherings by politically-advantaged individuals and groups?  Yep. 

Arrest someone walking alone on a beach for . . . walking alone on a beach?  Yep. 

Shut down tens of thousands of businesses?  Yep. 

Destroy trillions of dollars of private wealth by shutting down commerce for months on end?  Also yep.

Consider the points made in this amicus brief regarding the CDC eviction moratorium:

Quote

In its March 2021 eviction moratorium order (“the Order”), the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) purports to exercise sweeping federal power over intrastate contractual relationships and intrudes upon states’ sovereignty to manage their own internal affairs during the pandemic. Yet the Order’s expansive reach stands in stark contrast to the meager constitutional justification that the CDC offers to support it.
...
{T}he CDC’s interpretation {of its statutory authority} violates what has been dubbed the non-infinity principle, because the CDC’s position admits of no limiting principle, and would eviscerate the limits on the national government established by the Constitution.
...
This constitutional infirmity has real world consequences. Allowing an administrative agency tasked with disease prevention to take the reins of housing policy in fifty states without articulating its authority to do so assigns to the agency policy decisions far outside its expertise. The eviction moratorium—in its several administrative and legislative iterations—has already created unintended consequences in the housing market. Rather than protect the most vulnerable, the eviction moratorium is likely to lead to fewer and more expensive housing options.  In addition, the moratorium has already inflicted significant economic hardship on small landlords, who must continue to maintain their properties and pay mortgages and taxes without receiving rental income. While unintended consequences do not, by themselves, render an action unconstitutional, the damage done to the housing market is regrettably unsurprising given how far beyond its competence and constitutional authority the CDC acted in issuing the Order. The Constitution does not require that the federal government’s actions be prudent or wise. But it does require that those actions find root in one of the federal government’s enumerated powers.
...
The CDC’s Order epitomizes the kind of executive overreach that concerned Justice Alito. The Order’s substantial impact on intrastate private contractual arrangements—superseding millions of intrastate lease agreements and curtailing the fundamental state property rights of millions of landlords—is particularly troubling because the CDC’s reading of the Commerce Clause does not admit to any limiting principle.
...
The CDC’s view of the Commerce Clause imposes virtually no limits on the CDC’s regulatory power. This view runs afoul of what commentators have labeled “the non-infinity principle.”
...
Simply put, “for a Commerce Clause rationale to be acceptable under Lopez, it must not be a rationale that would allow Congress to legislate on everything. In a sense, this principle is a restatement of the holding of Lopez, since the case holds that the commerce power is not unbounded.”
...
The non-infinity principle is thus particularly applicable here, where the CDC has asserted that its power to regulate housing under the mantle of disease prevention is plenary and not tied to COVID-19 pandemic. ... Under the rationale advanced by the CDC here, it is difficult to imagine any activity that it could not regulate. Health is inextricably tied to economics.  Economic distress correlates to less access to health care and more acute and chronic health problems. ... And health problems can prevent people from working, which in the aggregate affects the ability to engage in interstate commerce and the national fisc. With no limiting principle, the CDC could conceivably require everyone in the country to get an annual medical check-up, have certain medical tests performed, or have certain vaccines administered. Setting aside the wisdom of these policies or whether they might violate other constitutional protections, the Framers’ promise of a limited federal government exercising only enumerated powers becomes meaningless.

(Emphasis added.)

An abrupt and radical effort to deprive us of our civil liberties would be a very difficult thing to do.  Better, then, to try an incremental approach.  Erosion over time.  Gradual expansion of governmental power and control, at the expese of individual rights and liberties.  

Shoot, many of those calling for such things may be quite well-intentioned in their efforts.  But power, once taken from the people and ceded to the government, is very difficult to get back.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
16 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think it's usually meant seriously as an apologetic for their position; rather, I think it's usually invoked to point out the inconsistency of abortion advocates (my body, my choice) suddenly being all for "your body, my choice" on other issues. 

I think you are right that it's meant to be clever, but I don't think it's used as a serious argument. 

You'd be surprised.

But even for the people that aren't being serious, it still doesn't work.  Because while they are trying to point out the inconsistency of other people's arguments they are also outlining the inconsistency of their own beliefs, which include the idea that people shouldn't be able to choose something that is going to hurt someone else, even if it means being forced to have something in their body they don't want.

Their position is no more consistent than the other side's.

Edited by bluebell
Link to comment
15 hours ago, mgy401 said:

One difference is that (barring instances of rape) a pregnant person went out of their way to perform an action whose natural consequence has long been understood as changing their state from not-pregnant to pregnant.  By contrast, a person who chooses not to mask or not to vaccinate is merely continuing to exist in the same state they’ve always existed.

Governments have historically been very willing to restrain the taking of life, but less willing to constrain the preservation of it.  

If these people were going to stay home and isolate themselves, I'd agree.  But that's not what they want to do. 

Instead they are choosing go out and be around other people who could be hurt by their refusal to vaccinate or wear a mask. They are choosing to go out of their way to perform an action whose natural consequences has been understood to have the ability to (and to actually have) hurt other people.

If we are talking about how choice works into the matter, it's not all that different.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...