Pro Choice or Pro Life (Survey)

[sayak83]

Just a little survey on a question that seems to occupy many:

There have been in the recent past and are now two issues regarding choice and life.
There was a vocal minority (?) that insisted on their bodily autonomy and wouldn't get vaccinated even so it would have helped to stop the spread of a deadly disease that killed millions. Were you team pro choice or team pro life?
There is a vocal minority that insists other people should be stripped of their right to bodily autonomy to save one life. Are you team pro choice or are you team pro life?

To clear things up, in both cases the question is to be interpreted as being reasonable. Of course people with medical problems shouldn't be forced to take the vaccine and likewise people with medical problems shouldn't be forced to give birth. Think about a law with reasonable exceptions for both cases.

Pro choice for both.
But enterprises are free to restrict entry to unvaccinated due to safety concerns.

However as noted in my abortion thread, I do not believe a fetus is a person and has rights in the first trimester. So the stand against abortion is not a pro-life position.

 

[SomeRandom]

I do not think that anyone is arguing that doctors should be ordered to participate in a procedure that they do not believe in.

One of the reasons that Roe v Wade was more about the doctor's rights than the pregnant woman's rights was that abortion laws tend to punish the doctors not the recipient. It gave the doctors the right to perform abortions without worrying about being arrested. In other words it gave them permission. It did not order them to do so.

Oh that’s what Roe v Wade is?

I always just assumed it was well.. legalisation of abortion. So I was confused when people said it was more about privacy. I guess I assumed it was about preventing access to the woman’s details.

Wow, I’m kind of surprised people in the US relied on that ruling for so long instead of bolstering it in other ways. (Not sure how since I’m not American, but I guess I mean passing other federal laws to compliment Roe.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh that’s what Roe v Wade is?

I always just assumed it was well.. legalisation of abortion. So I was confused when people said it was more about privacy. I guess I assumed it was about preventing access to the woman’s details.

Wow, I’m kind of surprised people in the US relied on that ruling for so long instead of bolstering it in other ways. (Not sure how since I’m not American, but I guess I mean passing other federal laws to compliment Roe.)

No, abortion was already illegal in many states. The US Supreme Court ruled laws that ban abortion in an unreasonable manner are unconstitutional. That is the sort of law usually left up to individual states. And as long as they don't violate the rights of others they are usually left alone.

If you see Someone v Someone.that is an indication that it is a court case. Taylor versus Hicks. Tom versus Jerry. Laws often have the word Act as part of their description.

 

[Ponder This]

I am.

If a doctor freely chose:

- to go into medicine,
- to pick a specialty whose scope includes procedures they disagree with, and
- to get a job at a facility that performs those procedures

... then that's entirely on them. Through their own free choices, they've put themselves in a position where patients are going to rely on them to perform those procedures.

If their facility or employer is okay with it and circumstances allow, they can get another doctor to sub in to do the work they're trying to refuse, but if that isn't possible, the patient's needs come first.

If some doctor doesn't like the obligation they freely agreed to, too bad. They can get released from it later when it won't compromise patient care.

I notice that you added "to get a job at a facility that performs those procedures", which, in my view, passes the buck (while ignoring if the doctors have any power to alter the nature of their work relationship). Do you also argue that a "facility" cannot choose which procedures it does or does not provide? And furthermore, is a state required to allow any procedure or treatment that an individual (doctor) or facility would offer, or is empowered (or required) to compel facilities or individuals to offer particular procedures or treatments?

Also, keep in mind that the OP states that the question is to be interpreted as a law having reasonable exceptions. So when you refer to the patient's "needs", are you arguing that patients need abortions and vaccinations just because the patients have requested them or are you refering to exceptions not relevant to this thread?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I notice that you added "to get a job at a facility that performs those procedures", which, in my view, passes the buck (while ignoring if the doctors have any power to alter the nature of their work relationship). Do you also argue that a "facility" cannot choose which procedures it does or does not provide? And furthermore, is a state required to allow any procedure or treatment that an individual (doctor) or facility would offer, or is empowered (or required) to compel facilities or individuals to offer particular procedures or treatments?

Also, keep in mind that the OP states that the question is to be interpreted as a law having reasonable exceptions. So when you refer to the patient's "needs", are you arguing that patients need abortions and vaccinations just because the patients have requested them or are you refering to exceptions not relevant to this thread?

Your questions are rather odd to me. Abortion laws only tell people that they cannot do abortions. They never say that people have to do abortions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I notice that you added "to get a job at a facility that performs those procedures", which, in my view, passes the buck (while ignoring if the doctors have any power to alter the nature of their work relationship). Do you also argue that a "facility" cannot choose which procedures it does or does not provide?

I think that abortion services should be a requirement for certification or public funding as appropriate. A hernia clinic or psychiatric hospital wouldn't need to provide abortion services, but an acute care hospital or general services hospital would.

Abortion services are a basic part of health care that the public should reasonably expect to be offered at a general hospital, just like we would expect a general hospital to have radiology, an emergency department, an ICU, etc.

Basically, any health care facility where an ambulance might take a pregnant person should be a facility that provides abortion services.

And furthermore, is a state required to allow any procedure or treatment that an individual (doctor) or facility would offer, or is empowered (or required) to compel facilities or individuals to offer particular procedures or treatments?

Different clinics will have different specialties. A health care facility should provide every treatment that is required by whatever certification they're approved under.

(And abortion services should be a certification requirement for any facility where they can be reasonably expected)

Also, keep in mind that the OP states that the question is to be interpreted as a law having reasonable exceptions. So when you refer to the patient's "needs", are you arguing that patients need abortions and vaccinations just because the patients have requested them or are you refering to exceptions not relevant to this thread?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I'm saying that any abortion that a pregnant person wants should be considered a medical need. It should be respected and acted upon, even if the doctor responsible for the pregnant person's medical care has a personal objection to abortion.

The doctor had the opportunity to avoid the conflict between their ethical duty and their beliefs by not accepting a position that includes abortion services in its scope.

 

[Ponder This]

Your questions are rather odd to me. Abortion laws only tell people that they cannot do abortions. They never say that people have to do abortions.

Quite so, because comparing abortions to vaccinations as the OP does is a false equivalency.

I think that abortion services should be a requirement for certification or public funding as appropriate. A hernia clinic or psychiatric hospital wouldn't need to provide abortion services, but an acute care hospital or general services hospital would.

Abortion services are a basic part of health care that the public should reasonably expect to be offered at a general hospital, just like we would expect a general hospital to have radiology, an emergency department, an ICU, etc.

Basically, any health care facility where an ambulance might take a pregnant person should be a facility that provides abortion services.

In other words, you are saying that (general) facilities are compelled to perform abortions. I disagree. (General) facilities should have the right to refuse to offer abortion services.

Different clinics will have different specialties. A health care facility should provide every treatment that is required by whatever certification they're approved under.

(And abortion services should be a certification requirement for any facility where they can be reasonably expected)

In other words, you are saying that the state may compel facilities or individuals to perform abortions. I disagree. Facitlities and individuals have a right to refuse treatment to voluntary patients not in immediate need.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I'm saying that any abortion that a pregnant person wants should be considered a medical need. It should be respected and acted upon, even if the doctor responsible for the pregnant person's medical care has a personal objection to abortion.

The doctor had the opportunity to avoid the conflict between their ethical duty and their beliefs by not accepting a position that includes abortion services in its scope.

I disagree. I assert that a want is not the same thing as a need. It is dangerous to confuse wants with needs in the field of health care and may even be unethical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Quite so, because comparing abortions to vaccinations as the OP does is a false equivalency.

I am not so sure about that. No one has advocated forcing vaccinations. Some jobs rightfully require them, but a person can always get a different job. .

In other words, you are saying that (general) facilities are compelled to perform abortions. I disagree. (General) facilities should have the right to refuse to offer abortion services.

No, not what I implied. A person could be ordered by the state to get an abortion if they have the right to refuse people the right of bodily autonomy. But getting back to vaccinations, if a government ahs the power to stop abortions, that is taking away bodily autonomy, then they also have the power to force vaccinations. Do you need an example for both force abortions and forced vaccinations? China springs to mind.

In other words, you are saying that the state may compel facilities or individuals to perform abortions. I disagree. Facitlities and individuals have a right to refuse treatment to voluntary patients not in immediate need.

Then by that logic they do not have the power to ban them. I have not problem with that at all.

I disagree. I assert that a want is not the same thing as a need. It is dangerous to confuse wants with needs in the field of health care and may even be unethical.

When it comes to such an issue who is best to judge a need? Once again, you are arguing against bodily autonomy, which means that if the politics swings too far to the abortion side abortions could be mandatory for population control. I am not for that either.

 

[Heyo]

In other words, you are saying that (general) facilities are compelled to perform abortions. I disagree. (General) facilities should have the right to refuse to offer abortion services.

Sometimes an abortion is a medical necessity and a clinic with a gynaecology should be mandated to perform it.
But I agree that a clinic or individual should not be forced to perform elective procedures.

 

[Ponder This]

I am not so sure about that. No one has advocated forcing vaccinations. Some jobs rightfully require them, but a person can always get a different job. .

Biden has tried to mandate vaccinations in many ways, for the military, for government employees, and for workers.
Telling a doctor that he should just get a new job if a procedure violates his oath is unethical.
And, no, a person cannot always just "get a different job".

No, not what I implied. A person could be ordered by the state to get an abortion if they have the right to refuse people the right of bodily autonomy. But getting back to vaccinations, if a government ahs the power to stop abortions, that is taking away bodily autonomy, then they also have the power to force vaccinations. Do you need an example for both force abortions and forced vaccinations? China springs to mind.

Forcing abortions and forcing vaccinations is a proper logical comparison and you give an example. Good job!
Banning abortions and banning vaccinations would also be a proper logical comparison.

However, your logic that stopping abortions corresponds to forcing vaccinations is incorrect logic. You are fundamentally wrong.

Then by that logic they do not have the power to ban them. I have not problem with that at all.

Not exercising the power to ban them is not the same as not having the power to ban them. You are confused.

When it comes to such an issue who is best to judge a need? Once again, you are arguing against bodily autonomy, which means that if the politics swings too far to the abortion side abortions could be mandatory for population control. I am not for that either.

Do you agree that there is a difference between a want and a need?

The right to refuse a medical treatment is bodily autonomy. If you support bodily autonomy so much, then you must oppose mandatory vaccination.

Why in the world would people who oppose abortion... do a 180 and mandate abortions?!? You are not making any sense.
Really, it is people who argue that doctors, in the general case, be compelled to perform abortions or other medical procedures against their will and/or better judgement, and also argue that vaccinations be mandatory that are but a thin step away from mandating abortions (such as your example of China)! All they need is a supposed public health need to justify a violation of your right to refuse (aka your bodily autonomy), among many other rights that may be violated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biden has tried to mandate vaccinations in many ways, for the military, for government employees, and for workers.
Telling a doctor that he should just get a new job if a procedure violates his oath is unethical.
And, no, a person cannot always just "get a different job".

Sorry, but this argument fails because doctors and members of the military are already required to get various vaccinations for their job. They cannot cherry pick which vaccinations that they will not take. Should we keep score? Yes, let's! So that is refutation number 1.

Forcing abortions and forcing vaccinations is a proper logical comparison and you give an example. Good job!
Banning abortions and banning vaccinations would also be a proper logical comparison.

However, your logic that stopping abortions corresponds to forcing vaccinations is incorrect logic. You are fundamentally wrong.

Governments can "ban vaccinations" if the vaccination can be found to be harmful. And you failed to follow the analogy, it is your logic that is fundamentally wrong. Stopping abortions would be the same as stopping vaccination, not forcing them.

That is refutation number 2.

Not exercising the power to ban them is not the same as not having the power to ban them. You are confused.

Does this even make any sense? Your claim amounted to a statement that they do not have the power to ban abortions. Does this even need to be refuted, You simply did not make a point here.

Do you agree that there is a difference between a want and a need?

The right to refuse a medical treatment is bodily autonomy. If you support bodily autonomy so much, then you must oppose mandatory vaccination.

Why in the world would people who oppose abortion... do a 180 and mandate abortions?!? You are not making any sense.
Really, it is people who argue that doctors, in the general case, be compelled to perform abortions or other medical procedures against their will and/or better judgement, and also argue that vaccinations be mandatory that are but a thin step away from mandating abortions (such as your example of China)! All they need is a supposed public health need to justify a violation of your right to refuse (aka your bodily autonomy), among many other rights that may be violated.

Your first question is a red herring. In this argument it does not really matter. The fact is that you are in no position to judge, nor is an antiabortion doctor. Now that doctor should not and cannot be forced to perform an abortion, but his or her opinion should have no effect on whether or not a person gets an abortion.

We will call that refutation number 4.

And your question about people doing a 180 only demonstrates that you did not pay attention. That may be why you cannot generate a coherent argument. It is not the people that will change their mind. It is the policy that could change. Since you screwed up there so badly we are done for now and that is refutation number 5.

 

[Heyo]

This thread is a week old and I don't expect too many new votes, so it's time for a summary.
The sample size of 21 isn't that great to draw conclusions from but we have a majority of 11 people who are unconditionally for a right to bodily autonomy versus only 2 against it. But the most remarkable result is that 8 people voted "I'm a hypocrite". Kudos for honesty. Five of them defended their position with posts and all five would suspend bodily autonomy for vaccinations but not for forced breeding.
Thus we have 16 people for pro choice for pregnant people against 2 by 3 unknowns.
Pro choice for vaccination are 11 against 7 by 3 unknowns.

I thank everyone who participated but especially those brave enough to admit to their hypocrisy and defending their position.

 

[Ponder This]

Sorry, but this argument fails because doctors and members of the military are already required to get various vaccinations for their job. They cannot cherry pick which vaccinations that they will not take. Should we keep score? Yes, let's! So that is refutation number 1.

No one has advocated forcing vaccinations.

I rest my case on this point.

Governments can "ban vaccinations" if the vaccination can be found to be harmful. And you failed to follow the analogy, it is your logic that is fundamentally wrong. Stopping abortions would be the same as stopping vaccination, not forcing them.

That is refutation number 2.

You agree that government can ban vaccinations. I rest my case on this point also.

Does this even make any sense? Your claim amounted to a statement that they do not have the power to ban abortions. Does this even need to be refuted, You simply did not make a point here.

States do have the power to ban abortions, but not all states are going to ban abortions.
States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are Alaska, Colorado, District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.

Your first question is a red herring. In this argument it does not really matter. The fact is that you are in no position to judge, nor is an antiabortion doctor. Now that doctor should not and cannot be forced to perform an abortion, but his or her opinion should have no effect on whether or not a person gets an abortion.

We will call that refutation number 4.

You agree that the doctor should not (and cannot) be forced to perform an abortion.
I rest my case on this point as well.

And your question about people doing a 180 only demonstrates that you did not pay attention. That may be why you cannot generate a coherent argument. It is not the people that will change their mind. It is the policy that could change. Since you screwed up there so badly we are done for now and that is refutation number 5.

I freely admit that I don't understand your argument on this point.
If the policy changed in that way, then it would violate the right to refuse a treatment.
Since I don't see a coherent argument from you indicating otherwise, there is nothing more for me to say about it.

It looks like @Heyo has summarized the results of his poll. So perhaps we should wrap up our debate on this issue as well. I give you the final word.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just a little survey on a question that seems to occupy many:

There have been in the recent past and are now two issues regarding choice and life.
There was a vocal minority (?) that insisted on their bodily autonomy and wouldn't get vaccinated even so it would have helped to stop the spread of a deadly disease that killed millions. Were you team pro choice or team pro life?
There is a vocal minority that insists other people should be stripped of their right to bodily autonomy to save one life. Are you team pro choice or are you team pro life?

To clear things up, in both cases the question is to be interpreted as being reasonable. Of course people with medical problems shouldn't be forced to take the vaccine and likewise people with medical problems shouldn't be forced to give birth. Think about a law with reasonable exceptions for both cases.

I voted pro choice, but I think the whole "pro choice / pro life" thing is a loaded notion.
As if one is "anti-life" when one chooses "pro choice".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I voted pro choice, but I think the whole "pro choice / pro life" thing is a loaded notion.
As if one is "anti-life" when one chooses "pro choice".

It's fair and accurate in the other direction, though: pro-choice and anti-choice.

(In fact, I haven't been able to find any other label besides "anti-choice" that is accurate)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's fair and accurate in the other direction, though: pro-choice and anti-choice.

(In fact, I haven't been able to find any other label besides "anti-choice" that is accurate)

Indeed!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To clear things up, in both cases the question is to be interpreted as being reasonable

Speaking of cautions, I'm reminded of: "garbage In -- garbage out."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Just a little survey on a question that seems to occupy many:

There have been in the recent past and are now two issues regarding choice and life.
There was a vocal minority (?) that insisted on their bodily autonomy and wouldn't get vaccinated even so it would have helped to stop the spread of a deadly disease that killed millions. Were you team pro choice or team pro life?
There is a vocal minority that insists other people should be stripped of their right to bodily autonomy to save one life. Are you team pro choice or are you team pro life?

To clear things up, in both cases the question is to be interpreted as being reasonable. Of course people with medical problems shouldn't be forced to take the vaccine and likewise people with medical problems shouldn't be forced to give birth. Think about a law with reasonable exceptions for both cases.

My brother helped me realize that I was hypocritical. However, I maintain that certain jobs should be able to require them. Healthcare, international travel, military, etc. I doubt your average burger flipper needs it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The unborn baby has a body.

But not an independent one. It’s literally living off the pregnant person.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Irrelevant. A slave couldn't get a passport either. Does that make slavery OK?

Please share with us a picture of a slave sale or runaway slave ad where the slave is a zygote.