Roe V Wade has been repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
293
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
602
Country
Portugal
I was going based on what Campbell was saying in that youtube video. He's considered somewhat of a centrist or "moderate".

ycsjgmA.png


[Source]
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
Yes of course and I gave those 2 examples.
I already corrected you that those examples have nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

Could they?
I'm asking you. It appears to be a consistent position to me.

Respectfully, you don't appear to have given bodily autonomy rights a lot of thought.
 

NoobletCheese

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
479
Trophies
0
Age
23
XP
849
Country
United States
Just because YOU don't feel like you're a thread doesn't mean you aren't, either with guns or vaccines, but in a proper functioning society I'm pretty sure you'd be denied one and forced by any civil means available to have the other or to quarantine. Civilization means more than your selfish way of thinking, comrade.

Well the burden is on you to prove I'm a threat. I can just sit here and say nothing and I win by default because I have no burden of proof. I've actually done you a huge favour by giving you all the reasons why I'm not a threat to you, which I didn't even have to do.

You're the one who's coming at me with multiple injections, penetrating my skin and inserting your genetic material inside me without my consent, so the burden is all on you, and boy is it a huge burden. You've got all the work to do, all the mountains to climb, and all the hoops to jump through, GO 👏 GO 👏 GO 👏 .

Can you imagine the moral disaster on your plate if it turned out you actually weren't justified in raping me multiple times? Can you imagine how vast the moral disaster of that would be? No you cannot, because your rational agency is impaired, and rational agency is a prerequisite for moral agency. So your moral agency is impaired, and I have little reason to be hateful towards you because it's not your fault.

Also "you MUST put this in your body" is in a different league to "You CANNOT put this in your body".

media-FWBylf-PVUAAexpa.jpg
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
Well the burden is on you to prove I'm a threat.
Even though breakthrough infections regularly occur, a person who is vaccinated is less likely to contract the disease, which means they are less likely to spread the disease.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/covid19_vaccine_safety.html

You're the one who's coming at me with multiple injections, penetrating my skin and inserting your genetic material inside me without my consent, so the burden is all on you, and boy is it a huge burden. You've got all the work to do, all the mountains to climb, and all the hoops to jump through, GO 👏 GO 👏 GO 👏 .

Can you imagine the moral disaster on your plate if it turned out you actually weren't justified in raping me multiple times? Can you imagine how vast the moral disaster of that would be? No you cannot, because your rational agency is impaired, and rational agency is a prerequisite for moral agency. So your moral agency is impaired, and I have little reason to be hateful towards you because it's not your fault.

Also "you MUST put this in your body" is in a different league to "You CANNOT put this in your body".
Nobody is violating your bodily autonomy rights. You're free to not get vaccinated if that's the stupid decision you want to make. Vaccine mandates that, for example, bar you from specific privileges like public transit, schools, hospitals, etc. because you're unvaccinated is in the interest of public health and isn't a violation of your bodily autonomy rights. You still have the choice to be unvaccinated and put yourself and others at risk.
 

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
384
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
895
Country
United States
Well the burden is on you to prove I'm a threat. I can just sit here and say nothing and I win by default because I have no burden of proof. I've actually done you a huge favour by giving you all the reasons why I'm not a threat to you, which I didn't even have to do.

You're the one who's coming at me with multiple injections, penetrating my skin and inserting your genetic material inside me without my consent, so the burden is all on you, and boy is it a huge burden. You've got all the work to do, all the mountains to climb, and all the hoops to jump through, GO 👏 GO 👏 GO 👏 .

Can you imagine the moral disaster on your plate if it turned out you actually weren't justified in raping me multiple times? Can you imagine how vast the moral disaster of that would be? No you cannot, because your rational agency is impaired, and rational agency is a prerequisite for moral agency. So your moral agency is impaired, and I have little reason to be hateful towards you because it's not your fault.

Also "you MUST put this in your body" is in a different league to "You CANNOT put this in your body".
You actually gave plenty of reasons why you ARE a threat to me and everyone else around you? You are not vaccinated and don't believe in PPE yet still wish to operate in society with no regard to the safety of others due to your conveniently self centered and quite flawed perspective. Also, if you're comparing rare vaccine side effects to pregnancy effects, you're woefully unaware of the discomfort and pains that come along with pregnancy, let alone the abhorrent crime actual rape is. You're playing a marvelous fool, and I do hope others are finding your floundering informative considering how important many of these topics are.
 

NoobletCheese

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
479
Trophies
0
Age
23
XP
849
Country
United States
Even though breakthrough infections regularly occur, a person who is vaccinated is less likely to contract the disease, which means they are less likely to spread the disease.

You can protect yourself from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, me testing negative while you aren't testing negative, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, and me being part of a small population cohort which you have a dramatically lower chance of encountering in public or the workplace.

If you still think I'm a significant threat to you, then it means deep down in the grey matter of your brain you don't actually believe those things are protecting you to any significant degree.

And the bit in bold actually makes me LESS of a threat to you than a vaccinated person.

Nobody is violating your bodily autonomy rights. You're free to not get vaccinated if that's the stupid decision you want to make.

FBZTj-Vu-Vg-AACf-r.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: BitMasterPlus

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
You can protect yourself from me with three vaccines, PPE, social distancing, me testing negative while you aren't testing negative, me being asymptomatic, me having natural vaccine from prior infection, and me being part of a small population cohort which you have a dramatically lower chance of encountering in public or the workplace.
None of this changes the fact that vaccination is one of the best ways to protect yourself and others, and you're willfully choosing not to do it. You cannot guarantee that you won't spread disease to other people, and you don't seem to care about minimizing that risk.

If you still think I'm a significant threat to you, then it means deep down in the grey matter of your brain you don't actually believe those things are protecting you to any significant degree.
The vaccine isn't 100% effective, and neither is PPE.
 

NoobletCheese

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
479
Trophies
0
Age
23
XP
849
Country
United States
You cannot guarantee that you won't spread disease to other people, and you don't seem to care about minimizing that risk.

The problem is that you lack the rational agency to realise that A and B are logically compatible with each other:

A. Being vaccinated minimises your risk of transmitting Covid

B. An unvaccinated person can minimise their risk of transmitting Covid to the same level or lower than a vaccinated person
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
A. Being vaccinated minimises your risk of transmitting Covid

B. An unvaccinated person can minimise their risk of transmitting Covid to the same level or lower than a vaccinated person
If a person hasn't gotten vaccinated, then it means they have not lowered their risk as much as they could. In fact, it means they've gone out of their way to increase their risk of catching and spreading disease relative to what it could have been.

The problem is that you lack the rational agency to realise
I honestly love it when people make catty statements despite showing absolutely no justification for behaving cattily, lol.
 

NoobletCheese

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
479
Trophies
0
Age
23
XP
849
Country
United States
If a person hasn't gotten vaccinated, then it means they have not lowered their risk as much as they could. In fact, it means they've gone out of their way to increase their risk of catching and spreading disease relative to what it could have been.

Compare the pair:

John is vaccinated but has not been tested for Covid.

Mary is unvaccinated but has tested negative, or has natural vaccination from prior infection.

Who is more of a threat to society: John or Mary?

If John is interested in minimising his risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't he be getting regularly tested and wearing a mask?

If the government is interested in minimising risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't they run public health campaigns to get people to lose weight and minimise their vitamin & nutritional deficiencies?
 
Last edited by NoobletCheese,

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
384
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
895
Country
United States
Compare the pair:

John is vaccinated but has not been tested for Covid.

Mary is unvaccinated but has tested negative, and has natural vaccination from prior infection.

Who is more of a threat to society: John or Mary?

If John is interested in minimising his risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't he be getting regularly tested and wearing a mask?

If the government is interested in minimising risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't they run public health campaigns to get people to lose weight and minimise their vitamin & nutritional deficiencies?
There is no such thing as natural vaccination, and while you do build up some resistance to an infection after getting it, you're still better off getting the vaccination before and after. You're clearly confused, as your comparison is just blatantly inconsistent with the findings of medical science and paints your worldview in a less than favorable light to others.
 

Dakitten

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2021
Messages
384
Trophies
0
Age
39
XP
895
Country
United States
It's like if you get chickenpox your body creates antibodies and you have natural immunity from then on, even CDC acknowledges this even for Covid
That is not "natural vaccinations", that is your body (ideally) surviving the virus and flagging key markers in its makeup to recognize and counter in the future. It has an increased chance of minor and major discomfort, life long debilitating complications, and death.

While vaccines operate on a similar principle, it is done with a variant of the virus built to not do any damage and better train your antibodies to defend against it being injected into your body with your knowledge and hopefully your consent because you aren't a doorknob.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
Compare the pair:

John is vaccinated but has not been tested for Covid.

Mary is unvaccinated but has tested negative, or has natural vaccination from prior infection.

Who is more of a threat to society: John or Mary?

If John is interested in minimising his risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't he be getting regularly tested and wearing a mask?

If the government is interested in minimising risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't they run public health campaigns to get people to lose weight and minimise their vitamin & nutritional deficiencies?
John should be testing if he is symptomatic or has been in close contact with someone who tested positive. He should be wearing a mask if he has been in close contact with someone who tested positive or is in a county with a high rate of transmission (or if he is immunocompromised).

Mary should do all the same things, and she should get vaccinated. The fact that she is unvaccinated also means she is less likely to do the things John should be doing too.

If all I knew was a person's vaccination status, I'd rather be around the vaccinated person vs. the unvaccinated person.

While comorbidities like being overweight increases the odds of serious illness and death with COVID-19, they have nothing to do with minimizing COVID transmission, and the US government runs active public health campaigns regarding healthy lifestyles.

What is your point? You aren't going to succeed in arguing that people shouldn't be vaccinated, and it has nothing to do with Roe aside from the failed attempt to paint a false equivalency about bodily autonomy.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
It's like if you get chickenpox your body creates antibodies and you have natural immunity from then on, even CDC acknowledges this even for Covid
Natural immunity exists, but vaccination is far more reliable and controlled. A person can get sick with COVID and obtain very little natural immunity relative to someone being vaccinated, or they could get about the same level of immunity. There is a correlation with how bad the illness was and how much natural immunity the person gets, but it's an unreliable indicator.

Regardless of whether or not someone has been infected, vaccination is going to increase one's immunity. The existence of natural immunity is not an excuse to not get vaccinated.
 

NoobletCheese

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
479
Trophies
0
Age
23
XP
849
Country
United States
Mary should do all the same things, and she should get vaccinated.

Why should she get vaccinated given that her risk of transmitting Covid is actually LOWER than John's, given that she has tested negative and has natural immunity which is just as effective or more effective than vaccination (which the CDC admits)? Keeping in mind the burden of proof is on you here and the consequences of getting this wrong would be morally disastrous.
 

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,140
Country
United States
If the government is interested in minimising risk of Covid transmission, shouldn't they run public health campaigns to get people to lose weight and minimise their vitamin & nutritional deficiencies?

They've tried, numerous times in the past. The one I can recall most clearly was when Michelle Obama was focused on getting healthier through school nutrition and related programs. Probably not ideally what you're referring to, but a start.

Why should she get vaccinated given that her risk of transmitting Covid is actually LOWER than John's, given that she has tested negative and has natural immunity which is just as effective or more effective than vaccination (which the CDC admits)? Keeping in mind the burden of proof is on you here and the consequences of getting this wrong would be morally disastrous.

Why not lower her risk even more? Why be happy with, let's say 50% risk, when you could drop it to 40? 25? 10? Why settle for less, when you can have the best?

It's like if you get chickenpox your body creates antibodies and you have natural immunity from then on, even CDC acknowledges this even for Covid

Right, natural immunity, not natural vaccination. However, what is the reasoning against getting a vaccine? From your perspective, if you will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,094
Trophies
2
XP
18,190
Country
United States
Why should she get vaccinated given that her risk of transmitting Covid is actually LOWER than John's, given that she has tested negative and has natural immunity which is just as effective or more effective than vaccination (which the CDC admits)? Keeping in mind the burden of proof is on you here and the consequences of getting this wrong would be morally disastrous.
Because it's still going to significantly reduce her risk of getting, suffering from, or transmitting the disease.

Natural immunity can be comparable to the immunity obtained from vaccination, but as I already said, it's inconsistent, and natural immunity plus vaccine immunity is better than anything else.

There is no excuse to not get vaccinated if one is medically able to do so. I think we can drop the conversation topic here unless you can bring it back to Roe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakitten

lolcatzuru

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
575
Trophies
0
XP
1,295
Country
United States
Okay, seriously, because it can't be said enough...

ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL, IT IS A LAST RESORT REGARDING FAMILY PLANNING! THEY ABSOLUTELY SUCK TO GET BUT ARE SOMETIMES REQUIRED BECAUSE LIFE IS UNPREDICTABLE, AND EVEN BEING RESPONSIBLE CAN ENDANGER LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS! IF YOU CANNOT EXPERIENCE ONE, PLEASE STFU ABOUT HOW IT IS USED BY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE LIKE A REPEAT METHOD FOR BIRTH CONTROL, YOU PIG HUMPING SMOOTHBRAINS!


You... really have never had sex, have you? That is so wrong it hurts.

First of all, women have a peak fertility during their cycle, but sperm can survive for several days inside a woman, and cycles can vary a fair bit. No scientist worth their salt would give the calendar projection model a 100% effective rating, and there have been cases of women getting pregnant even during their period! "Pulling out" also fails to get a 100% rating, but this one is far less complicated. Pre-ejaculate still contains sperm and can knock one's partner up, and is far more difficult to control and regulate. Also, and this is a little more subjective so bare with me, women have enough difficulty with the staying power of their partners so pulling out, while appreciated from a family planning perspective, would generally appreciate methods with more certainty and less excuses on performance. Somewhat anecdotal, I know, but hopefully it helps.

Thousands of folk don't get adopted in the USA, and plenty of folk wish they'd never been put up for adoption. This is absolutely ridiculous since we don't even have a system in place to ensure a good home with guarantees to food, shelter, and education for all children in families, let alone children without one. Also, "potential consciousness" is a cute point and all, but it doesn't change the fact that an undeveloped life is causing a HUGE impact on a fully realized life, and they may have any number of perfectly valid reasons they want or need to end that process. That is on them, not you or anybody else, to figure out, at any time.

Congratulations, you're on the crazy train of antivax and government upheaval. Amazing. THIS will surely get you taken more seriously! :grog: While we're here though...


Or if you're a potential spreader risk for Covid-19, you could get vaccinated to reduce your ability to propagate the virus! Full circle, comrade.

The funny thing is, Biden has actually been annoyingly lax on a true vaccine mandate. If you think he is a whackjob, an actual progressive would be so much better at seeing this actually happen. For the good of genuine constructive discourse, conservative men need to up your game.

im an incel, i dont get laid period, pigs included. Ok so abortion isnt birth control and the vaccine isn't a vaccine as it doesnt prevent an illness, just might possible make you feel a little better, guess neither are particularly useful then huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
    KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName: Well these names make sense