Vaccine Mandates

[as2]

Where did you get this from?

IINM that is how many pro lifers counter the "mbmc" argument. I think most people who are pro life still believe that one has the right to choose when it comes to decisions involving their own body, they only argue when it is directly effecting others.


I'm sure that is not always the case, but as you often point out, not everyone has goalposts.

[AsherO]

I got that.
The way I interpreted your post was "both sides use "mbmc" when is convenient for them." I could've taken that the wrong way.


My point was that when the pro life argue against "mbmc", their argument is that it isn't in fact your body, so it may not be your choice, not that you don't have the right to choose regarding your body.

When the same phrase is applied to vaccines, I would argue that there is no argument to how it is applied, rather some people just agree/disagree with it.


I may be making a completely unrelated point based on a misunderstanding here, so I apologize if that's the case.

I’m not sure I follow your point, but it seems to be a distinction between the counter-arguments to “mbmc” regarding vaccines, to the counter-arguments to “mbmc” regarding abortion.

The counter-arguments seem irrelevant to me because I’m not assessing the merits of “mbmc” argument in either case, I’m simply talking about the agenda behind them that isn't about anyones body.

[CountValentine]

IINM that is how many pro lifers counter the "mbmc" argument. I think most people who are pro life still believe that one has the right to choose when it comes to decisions involving their own body, they only argue when it is directly effecting others.


I'm sure that is not always the case, but as you often point out, not everyone has goalposts.

If the pro-life believe the fetus is not part of a women's body, then they have completely lost their mind and have zero credibility.

Their argument is that the fetus is a human life which science, and our law has so far rejected.

[AsherO]

If the pro-life believe the fetus is not part of a women's body, then they have completely lost their mind and have zero credibility.

Their argument is that the fetus is a human life which science, and our law has so far rejected.

Funny how you invoke “science”,  abused when it comes to abortions like it’s abused when it comes to COVID/vaccines.

[as2]

I’m not sure I follow your point, but it seems to be a distinction between the counter-arguments to “mbmc” regarding vaccines, to the counter-arguments to “mbmc” regarding abortion.

The counter-arguments seem irrelevant to me because I’m not assessing the merits of “mbmc” argument in either case, I’m simply talking about the agenda behind them that isn't about anyones body.

I may not have articulated my point well, but either way, it seems that I was having a different conversation based on a misunderstanding.

[as2]

If the pro-life believe the fetus is not part of a women's body, then they have completely lost their mind and have zero credibility.

Their argument is that the fetus is a human life which science, and our law has so far rejected.

I din't mean part of the body in a literal sense, but in the sense of being one entity or life. The argument is exactly that in my interpretation.


One side says my "body my choice" meaning "body" literally, the other disagrees meaning it figuratively.

[CountValentine]

Funny how you invoke “science”,  abused when it comes to abortions like it’s abused when it comes to COVID/vaccines.

I have no problem invoking science when it comes to vaccines.
AFAIK the science shows vaccines help or am I missing something?

[aygart]

If the pro-life believe the fetus is not part of a women's body, then they have completely lost their mind and have zero credibility.

Their argument is that the fetus is a human life which science, and our law has so far rejected.

This is something new to me. In what way did science reject that?

[AsherO]

I have no problem invoking science when it comes to vaccines.
AFAIK the science shows vaccines help or am I missing something?

The science does show vaccines help, but public policy decisions with regards to COVID policies as well as with regards to vaccination have nothing to do with science. Science is very frequently invoked whether it does or doesn’t actually support the agenda.

When it comes to a vaccine mandate, with questionable evidence about the extent to which masks/vaccine prevent the spread of Omicron, the “my body, my choice” anyi-mandate argument is much more plausible.

[CountValentine]

The science does show vaccines help, but public policy decisions with regards to COVID policies as well as with regards to vaccination have nothing to do with science. Science is very frequently invoked whether it does or doesn’t actually support the agenda.

When it comes to a vaccine mandate, with questionable evidence about the extent to which masks/vaccine prevent the spread of Omicron, the “my body, my choice” anyi-mandate argument is much more plausible.

I agree with Omicron the early science shows the vaccine is not very effective. The other variants are still around that the science does show the vaccines are effective. There can also be new variants it will protect against. To me this is risk vs reward. With risk being close to zero the reward way outweighs it.

Also, those against vaccines were against them from day one when they were extremely effective. This latest is just a smokescreen.

[CountValentine]

This is something new to me. In what way did science reject that?

To be fair science actually states human life begins at fertilization/conception. Being a human life at fertilization/conception is not correct. This has and will always be debated.

I wonder if the anti-mandate, but pro-life group believes it is ok to mandate vaccines for pregnant women to help protect the unborn?

[AsherO]

I agree with Omicron the early science shows the vaccine is not very effective. The other variants are still around that the science does show the vaccines are effective. There can also be new variants it will protect against. To me this is risk vs reward. With risk being close to zero the reward way outweighs it.

Also, those against vaccines were against them from day one when they were extremely effective. This latest is just a smokescreen.

Efficacy against future variants is a moonshot. And Omicron will likely be at 90%+ prevalence in the US shortly, if it isn’t already. In South Africa Omicron became 90%+ prevalent, overtaking Delta, in just a few short weeks since it was first identified.

[neveryou]

But I thought that "science" said that if you had the vaccine you won't get it or transmit the virus?

Are you spewing conspiracy stuff now?

[CountValentine]

But I thought that "science" said that if you had the vaccine you won't get it or transmit the virus?

You thought wrong.

[Euclid]

But I thought that "science" said that if you had the vaccine you won't get it or transmit the virus?

Are you spewing conspiracy stuff now?

The "science" said this about the Omicron variant?

[neveryou]

The "science" said this about the Omicron variant?

The "science" said this about corona, and taking the vaccine.

[S209]

I wonder if the anti-mandate, but pro-life group believes it is ok to mandate vaccines for pregnant women to help protect the unborn?

This is actually a great point.

[as2]

I wonder if the anti-mandate, but pro-life group believes it is ok to mandate vaccines for pregnant women to help protect the unborn?

I would assume not. Typically, the anti mandate stance is that we prevent the government from forcing someone to do a specific act, not to prevent specific acts by individuals.

[aygart]

The "science" said this about corona, and taking the vaccine.

They never said that. You totally made it up.

[aygart]

To be fair science actually states human life begins at fertilization/conception. Being a human life at fertilization/conception is not correct. This has and will always be debated.

The science is incorrect?