Government vaccine mandates and abortion restrictions

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I could as easily reply that your refusal to equate abortion with murder betrays a bias on your own part; especially given that the OP for discussion’s sake has essentially conceded the humanity of the fetus who is subject to an abortion.

I never said that I don't equate murder with abortion (or, something close to it), but absolutely yes, for people who use the "my body my choice" argument to justify abortion have their biases as well.

Quote

 

On the hospital issue specifically:  I would support hospitals triaging COVID cases in such a way as to give preference to vaccinated patients with breakthrough cases, or who had good cause not to get vaccinated, or (assuming it were hypothetically possible, which understand it probably isn’t) who had otherwise been diligent about masking, social distancing, etc.  You’ll not find me arguing for universal healthcare, and one reason is that I believe the availability of universal healthcare tends to reward destructive behavior.

But in a broader sense, as @smac97 says, human behavior almost inevitably creates externalities that adversely affect other humans.  At some point, being a member of society means that to some degree you can’t help but accept that you’re going to bear some of the consequences of someone else’s bad behavior.  I don’t like being contradicted, but here you are—contradicting me.  I find that very distressing.  I might need to work through that discomfiture with a mental health professional.  Can I send you the bill?   Of course not, because societies and governments have tended to tolerate behavior that has a history of being accepted, is unintentional, that is relatively low-risk to third parties, and/or where the nexus between cause-and-effect is remote.  A person posting on an Internet forum, or leaving their house and walking through a neighborhood park, tend to satisfy most or all of these criteria; the act of ending a child’s existence through elective abortion satisfies virtually none of them.

 

And that's the question, at what point does a government have the right to step in and say that your rights end where this person's rights begin?  There is no easy answer to that, and the whole 'my body, my choice' argument, while pretending to answer the question, doesn't even get close (whether it's used for vaccinations or abortion).

Quote

The relatively new thing in the last few decades, is that governments are increasingly seeking to constrain behavior whose individual consequences are negligible or even impossible to ascertain, but whose collective consequences are—at least in theory—significant.  We see this in issues of climate change, economic policy/taxation, and epidemiology.  Such measures may be necessary, but members of a democracy will tend to be suspicious of such attempts because its a thin line between “You need to do this but you can’t, and will never be able to, intuitively see the rationale” versus “because I said so, peasant!”.

If the line wasn't so thin, then there would never be an argument about whether or not to do it.  It's the issues around action that is sometimes appropriate, and sometimes not (when it's the same action) that are the hardest to figure out.  "My body my choice" people want to pretend like such black and white validations exist, when they don't.  There is always an exception--always something that works for one reason or in one circumstance that is completely wrong in another.

Quote

 And where the rubber hits the road in this particular discussion is that effectually, while it’s one thing to confine to their home a person who has actually tested COVID-positive—it’s a quite another to confine someone to their home because they might be infected by a disease that they might transmit to a person who might get symptoms and if symptomatic might be hospitalized and if hospitalized might die (particularly when we’re giving waivers to vaccinated folk who apparently can still both carry and transmit the virus).  That’s in a whole different universe than abortion, which (accepting the presumptions of this thread) will kill at least one child every single time it’s done. 

Even the church allows abortions under special circumstances, even though a child is killed when it does.  Nothing is as crystal clear as it first appears.

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do wonder, why would governments want to use masks to control the public?  What are the benefits of that kind of control, to the government?

Testing the waters?  A trial balloon?  Pushing the boundaries to see just how far they can go in telling us what to do and not do?

Why is the government getting into the business of mandatory personal pronouns?  

My personal sense is that it comes down to . . . power.  Control.  As Ronald Reagan put it: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear."

Also here: “I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

George Washington: “In politics as in philosophy, my tenets are few and simple. The leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves and to exact it from others, meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant, and happy.”

John Adams: “...I say, that Power must never be trusted without a check.”

A few more:

 

I see the United States Constitution as a check on governmental power.  That's the way it was supposed to work, anyway.

Consider Chesterton's Fence:

Quote

Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from G. K. Chesterton's 1929 book The Thing, in the chapter entitled "The Drift from Domesticity":

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

Chesterton's admonition should first be understood within his own historical context, as a response to certain socialists and reformers of his time (e.g. George Bernard Shaw).

I see the constitutional constrains on the size and scope of government as a manifestation of Chesterton's Fence.

I also see the proliferation of government programs, regulations, edicts, etc. as efforts to tear down the fence.  

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've heard this argument made before but I've never heard a good or plausible explanation for what the government is actually getting out of controlling the public through mask use.  Political purposes, sure, but a government using covid to force the public to wear masks is a much harder sell.

If we surrender civil liberties to the government, we are easier to control.  Easier to manipulate.  

I am grateful for the government.  It's better than anarchy.  But I don't trust it to not grow out of control, to not attempt to increase its power and wealth at the expense of individual Americans, to refrain from trying to exert more and more control over our lives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bOObOO]

4 hours 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.

I think I see the point of your question now.  You seem to be asking if it is ever morally right to impinge on the rights of one individual as an effort to protect the rights of another individual.  And people are answering while explaining their answers.

My answer is YES but I am not going to explain my answer right now.  Just put my answer down as a YES to this question.  I also like to try to rescue animals from imminent death, if I can, as long as they do not live in my house. And I like a lot of plants too.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

But to contextualize this with the current discussion comparing anti-COVID measures to abortion restrictions:  Would this be the same First Presidency whose discussion of abortion in the Church Handbook begins with the admonition that “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it”?

I mean, the glass house of ecclesiastical authority might have been a very nice place to wait out the COVID storm.  Unfortunately, the pro-choice wing of the Church has spent the last fifty years throwing rocks at it. 

It's the same First Presidency that allows abortion (the murdering of a child, as you called it) under certain circumstances.   

[mgy401]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Even the church allows abortions under special circumstances, even though a child is killed when it does.  Nothing is as crystal clear as it first appears.

To be sure.  But I’m not sure what bearing that has in the context of this particular discussion; because the issue here as expressed in the OP is whether there’s tension between opposing mask/vaccination restrictions of any kind and supporting abortion restrictions of any kind.  The fact that the Church’s policy is not absolute, doesn’t diminish the fact that the policy exists and that it constitutes a “restriction”.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Testing the waters?  A trial balloon?  Pushing the boundaries to see just how far they can go in telling us what to do and not do?

Why is the government getting into the business of mandatory personal pronouns?  

My personal sense is that it comes down to . . . power.  Control.  As Ronald Reagan put it: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear."

Also here: “I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”

George Washington: “In politics as in philosophy, my tenets are few and simple. The leading one of which, and indeed that which embraces most others, is to be honest and just ourselves and to exact it from others, meddling as little as possible in their affairs where our own are not involved. If this maxim was generally adopted, wars would cease and our swords would soon be converted into reap hooks and our harvests be more peaceful, abundant, and happy.”

John Adams: “...I say, that Power must never be trusted without a check.”

A few more:

 

I see the United States Constitution as a check on governmental power.  That's the way it was supposed to work, anyway.

Consider Chesterton's Fence:

I see the constitutional constrains on the size and scope of government as a manifestation of Chesterton's Fence.

I also see the proliferation of government programs, regulations, edicts, etc. as efforts to tear down the fence.  

If we surrender civil liberties to the government, we are easier to control.  Easier to manipulate.  

I am grateful for the government.  It's better than anarchy.  But I don't trust it to not grow out of control, to not attempt to increase its power and wealth at the expense of individual Americans, to refrain from trying to exert more and more control over our lives.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's hard to buy the idea that the government was just waiting for a world pandemic to see if it could control the public enough to force them to wear masks so that eventually it could get us to relinquish our civil liberties.  I mean, it had the same opportunity in 1918, when many states mandated masks, but it wasn't the beginning of a slippery slope to unchecked governmental power then.  Why do so many think that this time it's all different? 

Plus, is being unmasked in public during a pandemic even a civil liberty?  According to the definition of the term it doesn't sound like it is.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

To be sure.  But I’m not sure what bearing that has in the context of this particular discussion; because the issue here as expressed in the OP is whether there’s tension between opposing mask/vaccination restrictions of any kind and supporting abortion restrictions of any kind.  The fact that the Church’s policy is not absolute, doesn’t diminish the fact that the policy exists and that it constitutes a “restriction”.

I was speaking to the 'whole different universe than killing a child' comment, in regards to the idea that we make decisions based on "where the rubber meets the road".

Where the rubber meets the road, for anti-vaxxers, is "my body, my choice" (just like it is for a lot of people who are pro-abortion), but if killing a child is sometimes permissible, then likewise, mandating a vaccine could sometimes be permissible as well.

[mgy401]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's the same First Presidency that allows abortion (the murdering of a child, as you called it) under certain circumstances.   

Point taken; I’ll amend “murdering” to “killing” if it makes you feel better.

Care to engage with the substance of the point, which is that the elective-abortion advocates in the Church (who absolutely do not have First Presidency support) have pretty effectively undermined the First Presidency’s authority to weigh in on policy issues?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I see a difference between the First Presidency encouraging us to get vaccinated and the government mandating it.

Except I wasn’t referring to the “urging” people to get vaccinated. I was talking about urging people to follow the “wise” and “thoughtful”government leaders and medical experts (you know the same people instituting mask mandates). 
 

So on the one hand the first presidency is describing government attempts to control the pandemic as “wise” and “thoughtful” and on the other hand we have SMAC describing the same actions (as far as I can tell - that’s why I’m asking) as being driven by  “political purposes and public control”. 

[mgy401]

Just now, bluebell said:

I was speaking to the 'whole different universe than killing a child' comment, in regards to the idea that we make decisions based on "where the rubber meets the road".

Where the rubber meets the road, for anti-vaxxers, is "my body, my choice" (just like it is for a lot of people who are pro-abortion), but if killing a child is sometimes permissible, then likewise, mandating a vaccine could sometimes be permissible as well.

I’m not sure I quite follow the reasoning with the bolded portion above.  Are you making an objective argument that you personally believe to be right, or are you just running out the logical ramifications of the anti-vaxxer argument?

And either way:  is the argument here that if one very bad thing can be permissible in a particular extreme set of circumstances, then there is a particular extreme set of circumstances for which every very bad thing may be permissible? 

[bluebell]

Just now, mgy401 said:

Point taken; I’ll amend “murdering” to “killing” if it makes you feel better.

 

It's not really about making me feel better, but just what makes most sense.  Does it make sense that the First Presidency would ever allow murdering a child?  

Quote

Care to engage with the substance of the point, which is that the elective-abortion advocates in the Church (who absolutely do not have First Presidency support) have pretty effectively undermined the First Presidency’s authority to weigh in on policy issues?

I'm not sure what you are saying.  I don't see how elective-abortion advocates have done anything to the authority of the FP.  Can you clarify?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

I’m not sure I quite follow the reasoning with the bolded portion above.  Are you making an objective argument that you personally believe to be right, or are you just running out the logical ramifications of the anti-vaxxer argument?

And either way:  is the argument here that if one very bad thing can be permissible in a particular extreme set of circumstances, then there is a particular extreme set of circumstances for which every very bad thing may be permissible? 

Running to the conclusion of the "my body, my choice" argument.  

But we could ask, is there ever not an exception to the rule?  Any thou shalt nots or thou shalts that are absolute and provide for no exception?  I'm not sure I can think of any.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Point taken; I’ll amend “murdering” to “killing” if it makes you feel better.

Care to engage with the substance of the point, which is that the elective-abortion advocates in the Church (who absolutely do not have First Presidency support) have pretty effectively undermined the First Presidency’s authority to weigh in on policy issues?

I oppose abortion in almost every case but I also looked at the data. Per capita abortions are decreasing and they have been decreasing ever since they were legalized. There were way more abortions per capita when the industry was underground in some states and not in others.

I want less abortions so it is actually logical for me to be in favor of keeping it legal and instead focusing on efforts to make them rarer.

I think we are better off promoting a culture that values life and quality of life in general and having it spill over onto the unborn. You know, the opposite of what we are doing now.

[mgy401]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

[1]It's not really about making me feel better, but just what makes most sense.  Does it make sense that the First Presidency would ever allow murdering a child?  

[2]I'm not sure what you are saying.  I don't see how elective-abortion advocates have done anything to the authority of the FP.  Can you clarify?

1.  (Getting kind of far afield here) Well, the First Presidency are agents of an all-powerful God who *does* “allow” children to be murdered (not just killed), every day.  So talking about what the First Presidency would “allow” seems to be a bit of a red herring.  The bottom line is that they have described it as killing, and as sinful except in a narrow set of circumstances.  They have also “urged” the use of vaccines and face masks.  Which leads us to . . .

2.  Advocates of elective abortion (ie, abortions not done as a response to rape/incest/jeopardization of life or health) have argued long and hard and effectively that the Church’s teachings on what is or isn’t “moral” should carry no weight in discussions of secular policy.  But now, when we’re talking about a secular policy involving COVID, they’re suddenly singing “Follow the Prophet”.

Not only is it filthy hypocracy; but we now see the anti-vaxxer moonbats of the Church using pro-choicers’ own arguments about the fallibility of Church leaders to pooh-pooh the current counsel.

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Running to the conclusion of the "my body, my choice" argument.  

But we could ask, is there ever not an exception to the rule?  Any thou shalt nots or thou shalts that are absolute and provide for no exception?  I'm not sure I can think of any.

Ok.  Yeah, I’d agree that “my body, my choice” is not a particularly thoughtful mantra and, as was mentioned earlier, is probably more of a battle cry than an ideological lodestar.  For both antivaxxers and abortionists, really.

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I oppose abortion in almost every case but I also looked at the data. Per capita abortions are decreasing and they have been decreasing ever since they were legalized. There were way more abortions per capita when the industry was underground in some states and not in others.

I want less abortions so it is actually logical for me to be in favor of keeping it legal and instead focusing on efforts to make them rarer.

I think we are better off promoting a culture that values life and quality of life in general and having it spill over onto the unborn. You know, the opposite of what we are doing now.

What data are you looking at?  From what I can tell, the US abortion rate was 5 per thousand women in 1970 when Hawaii was the first state to legalize elective abortion.  It went to 13.2 in 1972, to 19.3 in 1974 (year after Roe), topped out at 29.3 in 1980-1981, and was down to 13.2 in 2018.  To convincingly argue that restrictions on abortion don’t reduce the number of abortions, then I think you’d need to see the modern US abortion rate dip below five per thousand women (where it was when elective abortion was universally illegal).  And you’d still need to correct for rising access to birth control, among other factors.

This sort of logic also seems to downplay the horror that each abortion represents.  As a matter of statistics, the prevalence of lynchings through the Jim Crow South was declining from 1901 onwards and was apparently in single digits after 1935—but it was still the Jim Crow South, and people were still being lynched; and that was the outrage.

And, in a more topical vein:  if government regulation isn’t enough to keep a person from aborting a fetus she placed in her own body through consensual action, then what on earth makes us think it would be enough to compel a person to undergo a vaccination that they sincerely believe will cause them harm (and that in many—most?—cases, does cause short-term discomfort and illness)?  We can’t have it both ways here.  Either government regulation is not an effective means of influencing human behavior—or it is.  

Edited August 12, 2021 by mgy401

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

From what I can tell, the US abortion rate was 5 per thousand women in 1970 when Hawaii was the first state to legalize elective abortion.  It went to 13.2 in 1972, to 19.3 in 1974 (year after Roe), topped out at 29.3 in 1980-1981, and was down to 13.2 in 2018.  To convincingly argue that restrictions on abortion don’t reduce the number of abortions, then I think you’d need to see the modern US abortion rate dip below five per thousand women (where it was when elective abortion was universally illegal).

To be fair, one could argue that these statistics don't depict the prevalence of underground illegal abortions, which I would guess would not have high reporting rates.

However I also think that that is kind of a cheap move because somebody making that objection doesn't have any data to demonstrate how much higher the real abortion rate might be. 

And it doesn't do anything to counteract the data that abortion rates jumped by 50% between 1974 and 1980-81, with legal abortion protected. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

What data are you looking at?  From what I can tell, the US abortion rate was 5 per thousand women in 1970 when Hawaii was the first state to legalize elective abortion.  It went to 13.2 in 1972, to 19.3 in 1974 (year after Roe), topped out at 29.3 in 1980-1981, and was down to 13.2 in 2018.  To convincingly argue that restrictions on abortion don’t reduce the number of abortions, then I think you’d need to see the modern US abortion rate dip below five per thousand women (where it was when elective abortion was universally illegal).  And you’d still need to correct for rising access to birth control, among other factors.

This sort of logic also seems to downplay the horror that each abortion represents.  As a matter of statistics, the prevalence of lynchings through the Jim Crow South was declining from 1901 onwards and was apparently in single digits after 1935—but it was still the Jim Crow South, and people were still being lynched; and that was the outrage.

Your statistics are true as long as you factor in only legal abortions. Of course it went up but it replaced a LOT of illegal ones that were getting people serious injuries or dead.

I don’t see abortion as comparable to lynching. Neither does the church.

2 hours ago, mgy401 said:

And, in a more topical vein:  if government regulation isn’t enough to keep a person from aborting a fetus she placed in her own body through consensual action, then what on earth makes us think it would be enough to compel a person to undergo a vaccination that they sincerely believe will cause them harm (and that in many—most?—cases, does cause short-term discomfort and illness)?  We can’t have it both ways here.  Either government regulation is not an effective means of influencing human behavior—or it is.  

I can’t draw a line between a 16 year old girl seeking out an abortion because she is afraid her parents may hurt or kill her and compare that to a 40 year old who doesn’t want a vaccine because people on the internet says it has tracking chips in it and makes you sterile and might be the Mark of the Beast. I have compassion for the former and disgust for the latter.

There also aren’t any general vaccination mandates on the state or federal level. Employers are requiring them which is their right and federal and state agencies and those who work for them are requiring them and that is their right. Anyone who is afraid of the short-term impact of getting vaccinated is just a wimp (absent something that would make it legitimately dangerous to get vaccinated). Yeah, it sucks. I got some of that. It wasn’t fun. I just curled up and endured. Get over it. I also don’t like needles. All it will cost you to refuse is possibly your job and maybe access to some of society. It is a tradeoff.

It is also an apples to oranges comparison. Virtually no one plans to get an abortion. I doubt there are many people who decide to have sex based on abortion availability. People do decide to get vaccines based on what it will give them access to (jobs, restaurants, whatever). The desire to escape pregnancy in some circumstances is almost primal. Not getting a vaccine is nothing like that. Threaten a job and most will capitulate. The pressure can work. I don’t think it works with abortion.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

To be fair, one could argue that these statistics don't depict the prevalence of underground illegal abortions, which I would guess would not have high reporting rates.

However I also think that that is kind of a cheap move because somebody making that objection doesn't have any data to demonstrate how much higher the real abortion rate might be. 

And it doesn't do anything to counteract the data that abortion rates jumped by 50% between 1974 and 1980-81, with legal abortion protected. 

It took time for abortion to proliferate so it went up for a while. Then it started going down. If we really want to lower abortions we could make it easier to get cheap or free access to birth control. Studies of other countries show that is the quickest way to nose-dive abortions. I would support such initiatives.

[OGHoosier]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It took time for abortion to proliferate so it went up for a while. Then it started going down. If we really want to lower abortions we could make it easier to get cheap or free access to birth control. Studies of other countries show that is the quickest way to nose-dive abortions. I would support such initiatives.

You could sign me up for that. I'm hesitant because I'm pretty darn worried about the impact of crashing birthrates but making birth control harder to get probably won't do much for that issue. 

[halconero]

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

You could sign me up for that. I'm hesitant because I'm pretty darn worried about the impact of crashing birthrates but making birth control harder to get probably won't do much for that issue. 

Romania is a good case study on what happens when you force higher birthrates on people who don't want kids. Pro-natalist policies that effect the margin (subsidizing the Stork, as it were) through child tax credits, reformed classroom schedules, and reformed work weeks are shown to stabilize birthrates to a certain extent, but will not wholly reverse downward trends.

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, halconero said:

Romania is a good case study on what happens when you force higher birthrates on people who don't want kids. Pro-natalist policies that effect the margin (subsidizing the Stork, as it were) through child tax credits, reformed classroom schedules, and reformed work weeks are shown to stabilize birthrates to a certain extent, but will not wholly reverse downward trends.

Yeah, the downward trends are caused by something far deeper. Oh well. 

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

You could sign me up for that. I'm hesitant because I'm pretty darn worried about the impact of crashing birthrates but making birth control harder to get probably won't do much for that issue. 

I am okay with populations stabilizing or even shrinking a bit. It will crash the economy but an economy built on expecting endless growth over stability is going to eventually do that anyways no matter what you do.

[OGHoosier]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am okay with populations stabilizing or even shrinking a bit. It will crash the economy but an economy built on expecting endless growth over stability is going to eventually do that anyways no matter what you do.

That's not wrong but still, the dislocations are going to be pretty terrifying. I'm especially thinking of care for the elderly: our society does not have a robust tradition of "younger generations tend the elders" and the state is going to have a hard time helping (at least in the US) given that the state's resources are already stretched and their stability depends on that same economic expansion.

But this is straying into politics, I fear

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

That's not wrong but still, the dislocations are going to be pretty terrifying. I'm especially thinking of care for the elderly: our society does not have a robust tradition of "younger generations tend the elders" and the state is going to have a hard time helping (at least in the US) given that the state's resources are already stretched and their stability depends on that same economic expansion.

But this is straying into politics, I fear

Fortunately(?) we may see average life expectancy continue to fall which might mitigate the problem.

[OGHoosier]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fortunately(?) we may see average life expectancy continue to fall which might mitigate the problem.

The answer to dystopia is counter-dystopia.