Am I the only person with consistent views? (COVID19/abortion)

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

The pro-life supporters always add this statement in parenthesis, with a hand-wave:
(unless she is raped, unless her life is at risk, unless the baby's life is at risk, etc).
Exactly as you have done here. You gloss over these "exceptions", when they actually reveal the problem with pro-life policy. Namely, that to enforce a pro-life policy, we will have to subject woman to a trial/court hearing to be held by some committee, in order to prove that the woman had, in fact, been raped, in mortal danger, etc.

This is a clear violation of the health and privacy of the individual you are interrogating. It is also no place for a government committee.

The soul, a human life -- where/when it "begins" -- when is consciousness "turned-on"; these are all philosophical discussions with no concrete answer. However, the woman you want to interrogate is a living human being, an individual, and that is no longer a philosophical debate. That you have government officials peer into her personal medical history and violate her certain human rights for the sake of your philosophical argument is questionable, to say the least!

To stand against abortion is not a problem, to be sure. To live by that code is also not an issue. To draft legislation, allowing the government to prevent others from doing it is your folly.

Pls turn this statement around and ask the exact same thing about fathers.
We cannot force a father to work for a child.
We cannot force a mother to go into labor.
See the pun here? Actually it isn´t a pun. The male body is "made" for work, just as the female one is "made" for giving birth. This obvious thruth (which will surely by questioned by some; I will give response later) is even represented by chinese characters for female and male: 女 and 男.

I would say, we can indeed force the father into slavery (for sustaining the life of the baby) unless he was "raped" (or his semen stolen). But pro-choice advocates only want rights for women, no obligations. I would also (and here I am an exception) force parents to donate blood, a kidney (or sth else that is reasonable; though some would disagree that a kidney is reasonable).

Now, how the fuck are we supposed to compare abortion to wearing masks?!

Obviously, the investment is drastically different in scope. But the enforcement of it and the justification are similar.

 

[Lacius]

Pls turn this statement around and ask the exact same thing about fathers.
We cannot force a father to work for a child.
We cannot force a mother to go into labor.
See the pun here? Actually it isn´t a pun. The male body is "made" for work, just as the female one is "made" for giving birth. This obvious thruth (which will surely by questioned by some; I will give response later) is even represented by chinese characters for female and male: 女 and 男.

I would say, we can indeed force the father into slavery (for sustaining the life of the baby) unless he was "raped" (or his semen stolen). But pro-choice advocates only want rights for women, no obligations. I would also (and here I am an exception) force parents to donate blood, a kidney (or sth else that is reasonable; though some would disagree that a kidney is reasonable).



Obviously, the investment is drastically different in scope. But the enforcement of it and the justification are similar.

Child support isn't a violation of one's bodily autonomy.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

A man isn't having his rights to bodily autonomy violated

Work requires the deployment of bodily resources (even if it is just the brain for an office job). Just image an African-American whose job is to work in the field at this time of the year. The owner of his body, in this case, is the state and/or the woman.

when he's designated partially responsible for the baby he helped create. Child support also isn't slavery. That's hyperbolic nonsense.

The woman is also partially responsible for the baby. Unless it is e.g. rape.
Child support isn´t slavery, I agree. And abortion isn´t bodily autonomy.
If it is, then I will indeed use hyberbolic language (to lend a mirror of knowledge to you).

 

[Lacius]

Work requires the deployment of bodily resources (even if it is just the brain for an office job).

That's good and all, but none of this is a violation of bodily autonomy.

Just image an African-American whose job is to work in the field at this time of the year. The owner of his body, in this case, is the state and/or the woman.

Slavery is not, by itself, a violation of bodily autonomy; it's the ownership of a person as property. Regardless, child support is not slavery.

The woman is also partially responsible for the baby. Unless it is e.g. rape.

You do not think a mother is responsible for a baby born of rape?

Child support isn´t slavery, I agree. And abortion isn´t bodily autonomy.

Being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Abortion is an enforcement of one's right to bodily autonomy.

If it is, then I will indeed use hyberbolic language (to lend a mirror of knowledge to you).

This sentence isn't particularly coherent, which is why it isn't getting another response.

 

[mikefor20]

When I started the thread I was mad. The more I read through it I feel sorry for so many of you. Mask wearing is not a choice. It's an obligation. You jack asses who politicize masks are truly selfish assholes. If I was carrying around a dangerous chemical it's up to me to protect others around me. Put a cap on the bottle moron. WTF? How is this an issue? Your stance is "I wanna shit where YOU eat. It's my right!"

RETARDED.

I don't like abortion as birth control. In reality, abortion is a WOMEN"S rights issue . 100%... Most of you have no right at all to say anything. Just because you guys act like girls doesn't give you a right to tell someone "You must grow this being inside of you that you REALLY want out of YOUR BODY" It won't work. At best you'll have millions of unwanted mistreated babies and piles of bodies from botched abortions. That's NOT compassion. We already did this in MANY countries in the past. Including USA. But some Congressman, Priest, Virgin (Gamer) or some other NOT A WOMAN says they have rules for all the Uteri in the world!!. IF IT"S NOT YOUR BODY YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO IT!. If that's the case I claim rights on all hands.

That way you'll all have to do my bidding!!! No touching yourself with my hands!

Seems THEY have decided what's in YOUR best interest.

What does Susie Nobody's uterus have to do with Senator Old fuck, the pharmaceutically addicted corpse who is jealous that someone even gets laid in the first place?!??! A lot of people here fall in that boat. They haven' t been touched in decades, or possibly at all, but they think they have a right to your junk??!?! Then they bring GOD into it??!!??! . Shit, every religion frowns on masturbation but still many of you have your little pud in your hand right now. Anyone who says restricting someone else body is an act of compassion is a diluted liar.

If you can't comprehend that wearing a mask and pro-choice policies are BOTH acts of compassion and are in no way an erosion of YOUR rights you probably should not speak, reproduce or interact with anybody in general. Too many people are on the fence IQ wise and your stupidity is contagious. And don't bring religion in to it. Religion is far too complicated for your tiny minds.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

That's good and all, but none of this is a violation of bodily autonomy.

Then forcing a woman to let a pregnancy come to turn isn´t either.

Slavery is not, by itself, a violation of bodily autonomy; it's the ownership of a person as property. Regardless, child support is not slavery.

A distinction without a difference. If I can force you to do sth, then it is ownership. Let´s try one more time. Maybe it will click with you: Imagine a white woman who tricked an African-American into a pregnancy by stealing his semen after sex. He is currently working on a field at 36°C. If he does not work, the state is going to put him in prison for failing to give child support.

You do not think a mother is responsible for a baby born of rape?

I specifically stated a pregnancy which is the product of a rape is not the responsibilty of the woman. (100% responsibility of the man; normal sex: 50-50)
If the mother has 50% responsibilty she still has the bodily autonomy to end the pregnancy - even against the wishes of the father.
If the father has 0% responsibility (semen theft) he is still forced into slavery by the woman at the hands of the state (other example: a cucked husband who did not even father the child).

Being forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Abortion is an enforcement of one's right to bodily autonomy.

Then the logic follows: Not paying child support is the enforcement of bodily autonomy (even at 50% responsibilty).

This sentence isn't particularly coherent, which is why it isn't getting another response.

I challenge your terminology "bodily autonomy" because it perpetuates the "rights for me, obligations for thee" kind of mindset.

 

[Lacius]

Then forcing a woman to let a pregnancy come to turn isn´t either.

Yes, it is. Do you know what bodily autonomy is? None of your examples involve doing anything to someone's body against their will. Forcing a woman to allow a fetus to feed off her body is a violation of bodily autonomy. Child support isn't a violation of bodily autonomy anymore than a traffic ticket is.

A distinction without a difference. If I can force you to do sth, then it is ownership. Let´s try one more time. Maybe it will click with you: Imagine a white woman who tricked an African-American into a pregnancy by stealing his semen after sex. He is currently working on a field at 36°C. If he does not work, the state is going to put him in prison for failing to give child support.

1. I don't know why you're unnecessarily bringing race into this. I'm unlikely to respond to posts that continue to do this.
2. A man whose semen was stolen isn't going to have to pay child support towards a baby born from that theft.
3. If a man who had consensual sex impregnates a woman but wants nothing to do with the child after it is born, the state may designate him partially responsible for the child. It is up to the man to decide how he is going to pay child support. Nobody owns him anymore than the government "owns" a person who gets a traffic ticket. In other words, there's no slavery, and there's also no violation of bodily autonomy in requiring child support. As a society, we decided that a child has the right to be supported, and those responsible for bringing the child into existence are to be the stewards of that child. If a parent isn't going to parent the child, then that parent must at least support the child financially. If you're going to argue that forcing a man to pay child support is bad, then you of all people should be pro-choice.

I specifically stated a pregnancy which is the product of a rape is not the responsibility of the woman. (100% responsibility of the man; normal sex: 50-50)

If a woman carries a pregnancy to term that was the result of a rape, she will be at least 50% responsible for that child. That's the way the law works. If she doesn't consent to that, she should terminate the pregnancy.

If the mother has 50% responsibilty she still has the bodily autonomy to end the pregnancy - even against the wishes of the father.

The ratio of responsibility for a hypothetical child is irrelevant when talking about the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman. It is her body and her choice, 100%.

If the father has 0% responsibility (semen theft) he is still forced into slavery by the woman at the hands of the state (other example: a cucked husband who did not even father the child).

A man who had his semen stolen has no say over whether or not a woman has an abortion. It's her body and her choice, since the pregnancy is not a violation of the man's bodily autonomy. That being said, the government is not going to require child support from the man, so it's doubly irrelevant.

As for the husband of a woman who is pregnant with a child that is unrelated to the aforementioned husband, the financial responsibly toward that child is his decision.

Then the logic follows: Not paying child support is the enforcement of bodily autonomy (even at 50% responsibilty).

Being required to pay child support is not a violation of one's bodily autonomy anymore than paying a ticket is. Nothing is being done against your will to your body, you have choices with regard to how you're going to earn money, and you are not property.

I challenge your terminology "bodily autonomy" because it perpetuates the "rights for me, obligations for thee" kind of mindset.

A right to bodily autonomy means a right to do with your body what you wish and not having anything forcibly done to your body you don't want. Violations include but aren't limited to:

1. Being forced to carry a pregnancy to term
2. Rape
3. Forced removal of organs

Violations do not include:

1. Fines
2. Tickets
3. Child support
4. Careers

Respectfully, please make sure your next post has new points if you want me to respond to it. The posts are getting long, and I don't want to repeat myself more than I already have.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Yes, it is. Do you know what bodily autonomy is?

In your own words:
"A right to bodily autonomy means a right to do with your body what you wish and not having anything forcibly done to your body you don't want."
I agree. And what if the husband does not want to work? Maybe he wants to relax instead. Or work for himself rather than his owners - the mother and state.

Child support isn't a violation of bodily autonomy anymore than a traffic ticket is.

A traffic ticket can result in the violation of bodily autonomy if it puts you in prison (for not paying) or removes your ability to drive. I do not have a problem with it though because it is applied equally to men and women. If you have a problem with the term bodily autonomy, we could speak of deprivation of liberty - like forcing a child to go to school or forcing a wife to stay at home and do chores (though the latter is only enforced in certain countries, I imagine).

A man whose semen was stolen isn't going to have to pay child support towards a baby born from that theft.

That is incorrect.
1) A man in the USA was forced to pay child support after the woman secretely kept his semen after oral sex.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/sperm-gift-keeps-giving/#.XzRk3nvLfVM
2) In another case a woman stole the semen without having had sex with the man. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/11...n-from-billionaire-wins-child-support-battle/

If a woman carries a pregnancy to term that was the result of a rape, she will be at least 50% responsible for that child. That's the way the law works. If she doesn't consent to that, she should terminate the pregnancy.

I disagree with this law as well. If it was really rape, she has 0% responsibilty in my view. A rape remains a rape, even if the woman later finds out George Clooney raped her (btw the same way consentual sex does not become rape even if the woman later regrets it). She could still have her reasons for bringing the pregnancy to term (though I would absolutely not fault her for having an abortion) like religious reasons (which I do not share) or fear of injury during the abortion.

The ratio of responsibility for a hypothetical child is irrelevant when talking about the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman. It is her body and her choice, 100%.

The ratio of responsibility for a hypothetical child is irrelevant when talking about the bodily autonomy of a father to-be. It is his body and his choice not to work. 100%.

A man who had his semen stolen has no say over whether or not a woman has an abortion. It's her body and her choice, since the pregnancy is not a violation of the man's bodily autonomy. That being said, the government is not going to require child support from the man, so it's doubly irrelevant.

Wow, you advocate for the legalisation of theft. Well, actually it is already legal as it has been shown in US courts. Could I also steal your hair or blood for testing purposes, my personal DNA database or cloning projects for example (if I come across it in a hospital, let´s say)? That´s some crazy viewpoint, man.
The last part: see the links above.

As for the husband of a woman who is pregnant with a child that is unrelated to the aforementioned husband, the financial responsibly toward that child is his decision.

Not true, see the case in the US:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...child-support-DNA-test-proves-not-father.html

 

[Lacius]

In your own words:
"A right to bodily autonomy means a right to do with your body what you wish and not having anything forcibly done to your body you don't want."
I agree. And what if the husband does not want to work? Maybe he wants to relax instead. Or work for himself rather than his owners - the mother and state.


A traffic ticket can result in the violation of bodily autonomy if it puts you in prison (for not paying) or removes your ability to drive. I do not have a problem with it though because it is applied equally to men and women. If you have a problem with the term bodily autonomy, we could speak of deprivation of liberty - like forcing a child to go to school or forcing a wife to stay at home and do chores (though the latter is only enforced in certain countries, I imagine).


That is incorrect.
1) A man in the USA was forced to pay child support after the woman secretely kept his semen after oral sex.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/sperm-gift-keeps-giving/#.XzRk3nvLfVM
2) In another case a woman stole the semen without having had sex with the man. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2019/11...n-from-billionaire-wins-child-support-battle/


I disagree with this law as well. If it was really rape, she has 0% responsibilty in my view. A rape remains a rape, even if the woman later finds out George Clooney raped her (btw the same way consentual sex does not become rape even if the woman later regrets it). She could still have her reasons for bringing the pregnancy to term (though I would absolutely not fault her for having an abortion) like religious reasons (which I do not share) or fear of injury during the abortion.


The ratio of responsibility for a hypothetical child is irrelevant when talking about the bodily autonomy of a father to-be. It is his body and his choice not to work. 100%.



Wow, you advocate for the legalisation of theft. Well, actually it is already legal as it has been shown in US courts. Could I also steal your hair or blood for testing purposes, my personal DNA database or cloning projects for example (if I come across it in a hospital, let´s say)? That´s some crazy viewpoint, man.
The last part: see the links above.



Not true, see the case in the US:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...child-support-DNA-test-proves-not-father.html

It took me less than a minute to debunk one of your links, and in the other one, the child support ruling was based on the claim and the evidence that the child resulted from conventional sex.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hotel-cleaner-used-condom/

As for the link about the husband, he signed the birth certificate, and he was only ordered to support the child until everything was resolved legally. Regardless, if a man is forced to support a child he had nothing to do with creating, that's immoral, but it isn't a violation of one's rights to bodily autonomy.

I've also said just about everything I have to say on the topic of bodily autonomy.

 

[Deleted User]

How does someTHING become someBODY/-ONE though?

Congratulations, you discovered the main reason of why abort is such a polemic topic. In my opinion, I'm a men of science. Always have been. So, well, I'm gonna stick with what science says.

 

[FAST6191]

When I started the thread I was mad. The more I read through it I feel sorry for so many of you. Mask wearing is not a choice. It's an obligation. You jack asses who politicize masks are truly selfish assholes. If I was carrying around a dangerous chemical it's up to me to protect others around me. Put a cap on the bottle moron. WTF? How is this an issue? Your stance is "I wanna shit where YOU eat. It's my right!"

We could contemplate rights of things and what trumps what there -- give me convenience or give me death and all that.

I however here am going for a cost-benefit analysis.

Mask use is anything but free and trivial, there are other costs in society in general, the benefits relative to those as it shakes out in the real world I intend to question and then ponder whether it is a net positive or if whatever positives there are find themselves less than the aggravation of wearing them. Cost-benefit was done for keeping people at home (and even then it was a fairly weak stay at home) and that seems to no longer be a thing despite it being far better (can't spread it beyond your building's shared air or household if everybody is at home, however the cost of that might have been too high).

From where I sit I would have to question the population wide efficacy -- it is a skill which the population as a whole sucks at (which should surprise nobody that has to have it as a skill for their jobs, hobbies and the like, or as trained people to use them), compliance rates (which we have to consider in everything else from antibiotics to transplants to contraceptives to laws in general), increased infection potential (be it with the masks themselves acting to harbour things or people fiddling with it because they are not used to it and got a cheap one, the options chosen for it (they are hardly all high grade bidirectional filters, including eye protection, or even full isolated rebreather type setups, as much as a cheap rag barely fit to stop a marble from going through and still worn improperly), what the latent infectious population count is to merit such things, what the mortality and serious negative outcomes rate is among the various delineations you might care about, what the psychological impact is (covering your face is a fun one in a lot of places and has been for millennia, to say nothing of it being a "I am invincible" type potential, though a bit of security theatre to get people out and spending could be interesting), what the societal implications are (I assume we have all seen the amusing videos of people flying off the handle from one way or the other) and this goes on for a while.

Is it a hill I wish to die on? Not really as I already know how to wear a mask, beyond that most people seem to be placated by me wearing a scarf anyway (I will save my fancy masks for my next grinding job, not to mention my scarf is probably better than most masks), I might have already had it anyway (timeframe and symptoms match, can't be bothered with an antibody test though) and it would likely pass me and those I live with/see by as more annoying than deadly, and security theatre is amusing (I do the same in airports where I figure out what nasty things I could make from a trip to duty free, some innocuous stuff I have and some fixtures I might rob from the place). As a question or policy debate on the internet though... I could stand to have it as the answer does not seem clear cut.

 

[mikefor20]

I dont see how a bunch of guys or gays have a right to a bunch of gals rights. If you've never even seen a vagina your opinion is probably moot. If you don't have to carry a bastard that a bastard put in you to term because of a bad decision then your opinion is moot.

You'll never know what it's like to have to choose.

We could contemplate rights of things and what trumps what there -- give me convenience or give me death and all that.

I however here am going for a cost-benefit analysis.

Mask use is anything but free and trivial, there are other costs in society in general, the benefits relative to those as it shakes out in the real world I intend to question and then ponder whether it is a net positive or if whatever positives there are find themselves less than the aggravation of wearing them. Cost-benefit was done for keeping people at home (and even then it was a fairly weak stay at home) and that seems to no longer be a thing despite it being far better (can't spread it beyond your building's shared air or household if everybody is at home, however the cost of that might have been too high).

From where I sit I would have to question the population wide efficacy -- it is a skill which the population as a whole sucks at (which should surprise nobody that has to have it as a skill for their jobs, hobbies and the like, or as trained people to use them), compliance rates (which we have to consider in everything else from antibiotics to transplants to contraceptives to laws in general), increased infection potential (be it with the masks themselves acting to harbour things or people fiddling with it because they are not used to it and got a cheap one, the options chosen for it (they are hardly all high grade bidirectional filters, including eye protection, or even full isolated rebreather type setups, as much as a cheap rag barely fit to stop a marble from going through and still worn improperly), what the latent infectious population count is to merit such things, what the mortality and serious negative outcomes rate is among the various delineations you might care about, what the psychological impact is (covering your face is a fun one in a lot of places and has been for millennia, to say nothing of it being a "I am invincible" type potential, though a bit of security theatre to get people out and spending could be interesting), what the societal implications are (I assume we have all seen the amusing videos of people flying off the handle from one way or the other) and this goes on for a while.

Is it a hill I wish to die on? Not really as I already know how to wear a mask, beyond that most people seem to be placated by me wearing a scarf anyway (I will save my fancy masks for my next grinding job, not to mention my scarf is probably better than most masks), I might have already had it anyway (timeframe and symptoms match, can't be bothered with an antibody test though) and it would likely pass me and those I live with/see by as more annoying than deadly, and security theatre is amusing (I do the same in airports where I figure out what nasty things I could make from a trip to duty free, some innocuous stuff I have and some fixtures I might rob from the place). As a question or policy debate on the internet though... I could stand to have it as the answer does not seem clear cut.

Scarfs, neck gaiters and fleece masks cause the water droplets to become smaller and more dangerous. Get a proper mask. Aggravation? Big babies. Selfish bastards. Probably don't wash their hands. Clear cut answer is wear a mask. No drawback except your pride for some perverse reason. Stop. You save 1 grandma then it's all worth it. Don't a selfish covidiot. Its not a seat belt. You are putting others at risk. I hope it's your loved one that gets sick from you. Cost is lives dude.

They're coming for you too Malachi

 

[pustal]

How is pro-choice a scientific question? It is a moral one.

People have been performing abortions since long before the birth of Jesus, it was only ever a matter of medical science catching up to the point where abortions could be performed safely. Limiting or removing access to safe abortion now would not stop people from having them done, it would just mean going back to back-alley abortions using coat hangers instead.

I'm just gonna weight in and remind you that the abortion period in which is safe for the mother to do so, and mostly legal around the world is coincident with the time that the fetus have no brain activity. The science of the matter lies in that a fetus is not a sentient being alongside not being a being on its own yet, where most discussion regards the comparison of between interrupting a pregnancy and killing a human being, while it is not an entity yet. All belief otherwise mostly derives from religion.

As for consistency. Wearing a mask keeps you safer, and others safer. Providing an abortion may mean keeping a mother safe and preventing a sentient life from ever come to be that could live in danger. Both situations prevent potential pain and suffering, and in some cases even death, so there's a consistency.

 

[mikefor20]

I'm just gonna weight in and remind you that the abortion period in which is safe for the mother to do so, and mostly legal around the world is coincident with the time that the fetus have no brain activity. The science of the matter lies in that a fetus is not a sentient being alongside not being a being on its own yet, where most discussion regards the comparison of between interrupting a pregnancy and killing a human being, while it is not an entity yet. All belief otherwise mostly derives from religion.

As for consistency. Wearing a mask keeps you safer, and others safer. Providing an abortion may mean keeping a mother safe and preventing a sentient life from ever come to be that could live in danger. Both situations prevent potential pain and suffering, and in some cases even death, so there's a consistency.

This. Except abortion rights are about more than a fetus. It's about the rights of women. Abortion will happen. Laws stop nothing. It's just a question of safety. We dont need all the consequences that come with banning abortion. Laws against abortion are anti woman laws. It's not you're rights being infringed on. It's not even the duty of the law to protect the fetus. The law wont help that dumpster baby from it's destiny either. Wtf?

 

[mikefor20]

We could contemplate rights of things and what trumps what there -- give me convenience or give me death and all that.

I however here am going for a cost-benefit analysis.

Mask use is anything but free and trivial, there are other costs in society in general, the benefits relative to those as it shakes out in the real world I intend to question and then ponder whether it is a net positive or if whatever positives there are find themselves less than the aggravation of wearing them. Cost-benefit was done for keeping people at home (and even then it was a fairly weak stay at home) and that seems to no longer be a thing despite it being far better (can't spread it beyond your building's shared air or household if everybody is at home, however the cost of that might have been too high).

From where I sit I would have to question the population wide efficacy -- it is a skill which the population as a whole sucks at (which should surprise nobody that has to have it as a skill for their jobs, hobbies and the like, or as trained people to use them), compliance rates (which we have to consider in everything else from antibiotics to transplants to contraceptives to laws in general), increased infection potential (be it with the masks themselves acting to harbour things or people fiddling with it because they are not used to it and got a cheap one, the options chosen for it (they are hardly all high grade bidirectional filters, including eye protection, or even full isolated rebreather type setups, as much as a cheap rag barely fit to stop a marble from going through and still worn improperly), what the latent infectious population count is to merit such things, what the mortality and serious negative outcomes rate is among the various delineations you might care about, what the psychological impact is (covering your face is a fun one in a lot of places and has been for millennia, to say nothing of it being a "I am invincible" type potential, though a bit of security theatre to get people out and spending could be interesting), what the societal implications are (I assume we have all seen the amusing videos of people flying off the handle from one way or the other) and this goes on for a while.

Is it a hill I wish to die on? Not really as I already know how to wear a mask, beyond that most people seem to be placated by me wearing a scarf anyway (I will save my fancy masks for my next grinding job, not to mention my scarf is probably better than most masks), I might have already had it anyway (timeframe and symptoms match, can't be bothered with an antibody test though) and it would likely pass me and those I live with/see by as more annoying than deadly, and security theatre is amusing (I do the same in airports where I figure out what nasty things I could make from a trip to duty free, some innocuous stuff I have and some fixtures I might rob from the place). As a question or policy debate on the internet though... I could stand to have it as the answer does not seem clear cut.

https://abc7news.com/duke-mask-study-effectiveness-covid-19-neck-gaiter-covid-19/6364640/

 

[FAST6191]

I dont see how a bunch of guys or gays have a right to a bunch of gals rights. If you've never even seen a vagina your opinion is probably moot. If you don't have to carry a bastard that a bastard put in you to term because of a bad decision then your opinion is moot.

You'll never know what it's like to have to choose.





Scarfs, neck gaiters and fleece masks cause the water droplets to become smaller and more dangerous. Get a proper mask. Aggravation? Big babies. Selfish bastards. Probably don't wash their hands. Clear cut answer is wear a mask. No drawback except your pride for some perverse reason. Stop. You save 1 grandma then it's all worth it. Don't a selfish covidiot. Its not a seat belt. You are putting others at risk. I hope it's your loved one that gets sick from you. Cost is lives dude.

They're coming for you too Malachi

If it is to be a moral question then it is generally held anybody of sufficient capacity can have some input on the matter. In this case I fail to see how someone can't weigh up merits of what bodily autonomy is, what changes happen because of pregnancy, what rights should be accorded to what stage of development (there are those that would oppose contraception the same as they oppose masturbation, some that would oppose letting eggs slip away unused, some that would only care about implantation and on and on until practically birth) and what modifiers they might have for other conditions, what the aggregate outcomes are, what the extreme case outcomes are, and what techniques might be pursued to change things and possibly future modifiers (we have mammalian life grown in artificial wombs, and it has serious money pursuing it).
I don't need to have cancer to read data, study things and have input on what might want be pursued. More knowledge probably makes for a debate partner but having a vagina affords about as much knowledge as someone owing a car makes them an engine designer.

Forcing everybody into their house, closing borders and saying we see you on the streets we put two in your head would save a few thousand grandmas (probably way more than masks for the general public ever will) and end it in about two weeks and result in a small enough infection rate that tracking is viable (tracking could also be mandated I guess). Maybe cancel the two weeks and instead "until we get a fully tested vaccine". We don't however do that because the cost is too high for the benefits.
Similarly by knowing the efficacy rather than operating on blind faith we also get some idea of when it might want to be ended, relaxed or altered, even if right now could make a net positive for the negatives.

Speaking of negatives I elaborated upon several drawbacks in the earlier post. For the sake of an even simpler one though then monetary cost, increased waste/litter, discomfort, fogged glasses, potentially increased infection rate in some scenarios (the mask itself being reused and harbouring things, people fumbling with their face), if you reckon improper masks (which are common) atomise things better then I'll take it as read for this little list, social norms altered, people less able to lip read, undue bravado due to misplaced notions of protection... You seem content in some cases to dismiss those, why might I adopt your valuations and weightings of the factors here?

Likewise not wearing a seatbelt still means someone has to come squirt/scrape you out of the wreck, to say nothing of you maybe depriving those in your life of your presence that they might value.
Plenty of other things have a cost in lives as well, often similar "simple" solutions (ones that are completely and utterly uncontested even) and maybe even greater effects but we don't do them either or mandate them either.

Anyway you appear to just be on rant. Hopefully you can stop being scared of the world one day; seen it a few times in others and it looks truly exhausting.

Mind you I am curious to see what effects this mask lark has for other diseases. Summer colds are less of a thing, though still one, but it is winter in some places. Controlling it for decreased interactions, distancing, schools being out of session and the like might get fun but can probably still be done.

 

[mikefor20]

If it is to be a moral question then it is generally held anybody of sufficient capacity can have some input on the matter. In this case I fail to see how someone can't weigh up merits of what bodily autonomy is, what changes happen because of pregnancy, what rights should be accorded to what stage of development (there are those that would oppose contraception the same as they oppose masturbation, some that would oppose letting eggs slip away unused, some that would only care about implantation and on and on until practically birth) and what modifiers they might have for other conditions, what the aggregate outcomes are, what the extreme case outcomes are, and what techniques might be pursued to change things and possibly future modifiers (we have mammalian life grown in artificial wombs, and it has serious money pursuing it).
I don't need to have cancer to read data, study things and have input on what might want be pursued. More knowledge probably makes for a debate partner but having a vagina affords about as much knowledge as someone owing a car makes them an engine designer.

Forcing everybody into their house, closing borders and saying we see you on the streets we put two in your head would save a few thousand grandmas (probably way more than masks for the general public ever will) and end it in about two weeks and result in a small enough infection rate that tracking is viable (tracking could also be mandated I guess). Maybe cancel the two weeks and instead "until we get a fully tested vaccine". We don't however do that because the cost is too high for the benefits.
Similarly by knowing the efficacy rather than operating on blind faith we also get some idea of when it might want to be ended, relaxed or altered, even if right now could make a net positive for the negatives.

Speaking of negatives I elaborated upon several drawbacks in the earlier post. For the sake of an even simpler one though then monetary cost, increased waste/litter, discomfort, fogged glasses, potentially increased infection rate in some scenarios (the mask itself being reused and harbouring things, people fumbling with their face), if you reckon improper masks (which are common) atomise things better then I'll take it as read for this little list, social norms altered, people less able to lip read, undue bravado due to misplaced notions of protection... You seem content in some cases to dismiss those, why might I adopt your valuations and weightings of the factors here?

Likewise not wearing a seatbelt still means someone has to come squirt/scrape you out of the wreck, to say nothing of you maybe depriving those in your life of your presence that they might value.
Plenty of other things have a cost in lives as well, often similar "simple" solutions (ones that are completely and utterly uncontested even) and maybe even greater effects but we don't do them either or mandate them either.

Anyway you appear to just be on rant. Hopefully you can stop being scared of the world one day; seen it a few times in others and it looks truly exhausting.

Mind you I am curious to see what effects this mask lark has for other diseases. Summer colds are less of a thing, though still one, but it is winter in some places. Controlling it for decreased interactions, distancing, schools being out of session and the like might get fun but can probably still be done.

Dude, your opinion doesn't matter on abortion. My opinion doesn't matter on your masturbation. You don't have a right to tell anybody what to do with their body. I am sure you do plenty with yours others would find disturbing.

You have no right to go in to public and not wear a mask. Bottom line. No grey area. You are potentially infectious. As am I . The only SANE thing to do is to take precautions. For everyone. Any argument against masks is just an attempt to wag the dog and confuse the issue. There is no debate. Just intelligence vs stupidity. Say what you want but get the fuck away from me you selfish grandma killer.

The seat belt analogy is perfect. If you refuse to wear one you are risking your own life mainly. You might destroy someone else's fragile egg shell mind. How is watching Grammy die a painful death not scarring? You are so fragile you loose sleep over what other people do with their wombs.

I think it's people like that who hate vaginas. I think vaginas hate those people too. I for one love vaginas and I prefer to let the woman decide what's best for her and her uterus. I am sure you can find a woman who shares your views and when you knock her up and it has downs you can decide too. WTF How can you not realize that you will never know where people are coming from. Freedom is the only choice. Make your own boundaries but don't inflict them on me.

WEAR A MASK AND MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO WILLFULLY INFECT PEOPLE OR TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLES BODIES.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Dude, your opinion doesn't matter on abortion. My opinion doesn't matter on your masturbation. You don't have a right to tell anybody what to do with their body. I am sure you do plenty with yours others would find disturbing.

You have no right to go in to public and not wear a mask. Bottom line. No grey area. You are potentially infectious. As am I . The only SANE thing to do is to take precautions. For everyone. Any argument against masks is just an attempt to wag the dog and confuse the issue. There is no debate. Just intelligence vs stupidity. Say what you want but get the fuck away from me you selfish grandma killer.

The seat belt analogy is perfect. If you refuse to wear one you are risking your own life mainly. You might destroy someone else's fragile egg shell mind. How is watching Grammy die a painful death not scarring? You are so fragile you loose sleep over what other people do with their wombs.

I think it's people like that who hate vaginas. I think vaginas hate those people too. I for one love vaginas and I prefer to let the woman decide what's best for her and her uterus. I am sure you can find a woman who shares your views and when you knock her up and it has downs you can decide too. WTF How can you not realize that you will never know where people are coming from. Freedom is the only choice. Make your own boundaries but don't inflict them on me.

WEAR A MASK AND MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO WILLFULLY INFECT PEOPLE OR TO CONTROL OTHER PEOPLES BODIES.

So just because I'm a dude, I can't say that killing babies is wrong.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

It's about the rights of women.

Have you ever stopped to think about the rights of men? Your passionate responses do have some validity. However, there are women who have not worked a day in their life, got children from different men and live a life of child support. By your logic, they should not have a say about the topic child support.
From a female perspective it is better to have 3 children from 3 different men than from the same one: 3 cash cows to milk instead of one. I would accept abortion rights (including 2 years after birth if desired) if there was no child support. This would make both genders think about mating choices more carefully.
However, in a system that disadvantages males (child support, i.e. forced labor) I cannot support abortion.

You brought up the argument that abortion will happen anyway. You are correct, but the threshold is higher. You also cannot prevent that men will try everything they can to avoid child support (including lying, hiding their money etc). Should we therefore give it up?

I can talk about these things even though I do not have children. Nor would I choose a woman who would abuse the system like that. Religious women can be a somewhat good filter btw.

Bottom line: We can choose to live in a social society (no abortion rights, but possibilty, esp. if the father agrees + child support) or in a wild west society (abortion rights, no child support), but we shouldn´t live in an unfair society.

 

[mikefor20]

So just because I'm a dude, I can't say that killing babies is wrong.

It's not up to you. It's not your life. I am positive you do things that in other countries would be enough to have you locked up forever. Who are you to judge a 14 year old who got sweet talked because shes a 14 year old!!! Or a prom queen who gets drunk and wakes up in a hotel. Or any other honest mistakes that human beings make. Most you would worry about is a disease from that 1 night stand and when you'll walk straight again but she might have real life changing consequences. If men could get pregnant too this debate wouldn't happen. I think having unwanted rape spawned orphan dumpster babies are a tragedy right up there with an abortion. I don't condone abortion. Especially for birth control. But I don't think it's my right to tell you what to do. Mind your own business Adolf. Freedom is important. You never had to walk in their shoes.