Legal/scotus thread

It's one of about a dozen any sane person who can think rationally could come up with.

Well, ignoring the tens of thousands of people who were fired for not taking the jab, most notably federal employees....

The question is about the bodily autonomy argument. So how does one reconcile NOT supporting bodily autonomy with the jab, but uses bodily autonomy as the sacrament argument for abortion
 
In my view both abortion and vaccine mandates are issues that involve competing interests.

In the case of vaccine mandates for a deadly and contagious disease that has killed millions the competing interests are public health, including the need to reduce contagion, and individual autonomy (muh rights).

In the case of abortion, I think there are obvious competing interests between a woman's rights over her body and those of the fetus. And it also seems obvious to me that the weight attached to the latter grows during the course of a pregnancy.

Both issues imo that should be squarely in the realm of the body politic for voters and their elected representatives to make policy. I don't see any absolutes with either issue. Others may see absolutes, but for me they are just not there. Instead I see them both as issues involving competing interests.
 
Last edited:
In other words, for the last two years you gave zero ****s about bodily autonomy so I am no longer interested in hearing that argument anymore
 
You supported vaccine mandates (like an idiot)... Do you support bodily autonomy for abortions?

Of course I support vaccine mandates. They are hardly new, having existed for decades for school children, the military, and at hospitals. We're lucky the lunacy of folk libertarianism wasn't in full flower at the time those vaccine mandates were implemented (without much of a fuss).

As for abortion, I just said there are competing interests. Which means a woman's right to bodily autonomy is not absolute. I support letting different states implement policies that they judge best for themselves.
 
Well, ignoring the tens of thousands of people who were fired for not taking the jab, most notably federal employees....

The question is about the bodily autonomy argument. So how does one reconcile NOT supporting bodily autonomy with the jab, but uses bodily autonomy as the sacrament argument for abortion

Find me peopel who lost their job because they couldn't get the vaccine because it was dangerous to their health.
 
[tw]1540340414447755266[/tw]

Thomas wants to reconsider Lawrence? I’d like to get off this ride now.

Edited to add: pay no mind to the preceding tweet. I’m staying firmly the **** out of this particular debate.
 
Last edited:
Find me peopel who lost their job because they couldn't get the vaccine because it was dangerous to their health.

It's not lost on that you to continue to run away from the actual question

It's clear you only support bodily autonomy when you agree with the politics of it
 
[tw]1540340414447755266[/tw]

Thomas wants to reconsider Lawrence? I’d like to get off this ride now.

Edited to add: pay no mind to the preceding tweet. I’m staying firmly the **** out of this particular debate.

I wonder if this loser mourns the death of 63 million dead babies
 
I need those stats on all the dead mothers in Europe who has much stricter abortion access than what the US will have.

This is yet another "the world is gonna end in 12 years"... "Net neutrality is the end of the internet"... "Lifting mask mandates on planes will kill us all"

The left lives in a fantasy land
 
Life is precious. If I thought getting vaccinated or wearing a mask might save a few, I'd regard that as a no brainer. Muh rights notwithstanding.

Yeah we know love.mandating useless crap on people who do t want or need them

But my decision to not put a useless vax into my body does not kill anyone.

The decision to abort a child has a 100% murder rate
 
Back
Top