Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   A.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆 (juliusgoat@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 00:52:32 JST A.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆

   Covid's great lesson was demonstrating that "patriots" who favor government with unshakeable support as long as it is harming people will also deploy impenetrable skepticism and violent opposition as soon as that government seems it might ask them to engage in even tiny acts of harm reduction.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:03:16 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • tessarakt

     @tessarakt

     Agreed, which is why i am personally for permitting abortions with strong restrictions that maximize consideration for the bodily autonomy of both.

     But regardless of if we agree that it is a good application of bodily autonomy principle as I said lets be fair to their stance and why they have it rather than trying to lie and frame it in an inaccurate way in order to look superior (which only serves to hurt our own argument)

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     tessarakt (tessarakt@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:03:17 JST tessarakt

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat Abortion ban violates the bodily autonomy of the pregnant woman.

   • Embed this notice
     pinkdrunkenelephants (pinkdrunkenelephants@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:25:43 JST pinkdrunkenelephants

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • tessarakt

     @freemo @tessarakt @JuliusGoat So your answer to OP is to prove their point by trying to derail the thread by arguing about abortion? 🤦

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:26:21 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @pinkdrunkenelephants

     And you prove my point by derailing the thread by mentioning valid and relevant points I made to the main thread and making it toxic and antagonistic rather than discussing a relevant point maturely (or just moving on).

     I pointed out it was an argument about bodily autonomy and pointed out how that is consistent with their other arguments. It is directly relevant to my point which directly addressed the OPs point. That isnt derailing, that is valid discussion of relevant nuance.

     @tessarakt @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:27:52 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @pinkdrunkenelephants

     You cared enough to respond twice now. If you didnt care (or were simply not a toxic person) you wouldnt have commented at all and just moved on if you didnt like the discussion.

     @tessarakt @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     pinkdrunkenelephants (pinkdrunkenelephants@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:27:53 JST pinkdrunkenelephants

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • tessarakt

     @freemo @tessarakt @JuliusGoat No one cares about your point. Get the fuck out, MAGA cultist

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:29:46 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @pinkdrunkenelephants

     What do you mean off "Your" feed. We arent on your feed. You replied to **me** your on my thread, and we are both on someone elses feed, not yours.

     @tessarakt @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     pinkdrunkenelephants (pinkdrunkenelephants@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:29:47 JST pinkdrunkenelephants

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • tessarakt

     @freemo @tessarakt @JuliusGoat Off my feed, cultist. Go subjugate women and trans people elsewhere

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:34:18 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • arceuthobium

     @theothersimo

     Depends on the person. No doubt this does explain some of them. But it is hardly the majority.

     Take myself as a prime counter example. I worked as a COVID-19 research scientist. I beleive that if you dont take the vaccine you are a complete and utter moron. Regardless I am against mandatory vaccines. Most people ont he left screamed anti-vaxxer at me, when clearly i was pro-vaccine, they just refused to hear any nuance in my stance.

     This is what the left routinely does, what you just did. Pretend like you hear an argument which isnt the argument being made (or made by a small minority) and then turnt he toxicity up to 11. The truth is most people who were against mandatory vaccines and labled an anti-vaxxer weren't even against vaccines, at all. You magnify the 1% most idiotic of the other argument and then pretend like its the majority. Worst yet, its a lie repeated so often people believe it.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     arceuthobium (theothersimo@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:34:19 JST arceuthobium

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat but that’s a lie. Antivaxers care about bodily autonomy the same way racists care about “reverse discrimination” or conservatives care about “free speech,” they’re just wrapping their agenda in the language of their enemies.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:35:28 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • arceuthobium
     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @theothersimo

     Being nuanced and being correct/wrong are not mutually exclusive ideas. Your argument managed to somehow make less sense than this asshat, impressive.

     @pinkdrunkenelephants @tessarakt @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     arceuthobium (theothersimo@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:35:29 JST arceuthobium

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @freemo @pinkdrunkenelephants @tessarakt @JuliusGoat it’s not nuance, you’re just wrong.

   • Embed this notice
     arceuthobium (theothersimo@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:45:02 JST arceuthobium

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • arceuthobium

     @freemo @theothersimo @JuliusGoat if you’re not part of the 99% of opponents of systemic vaccination who want to sabotage and destroy society’s ability to respond to emergencies like Covid and climate change, don’t take offense when I call out the other 99%.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 01:45:02 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • arceuthobium

     @theothersimo

     I took offense to you referring to it as 99% which it clearly isnt. A **very** large proportion support vaccines and are against **mandatory** vaccines. Whatever the actual percentage it doesnt even approach the numbers you are claiming.

     I also didnt take offense for you calling out the minority, i took offense to you framing as if they were 99% when they are clearly not.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     arceuthobium (theothersimo@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:04:31 JST arceuthobium

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • arceuthobium

     @freemo @theothersimo @JuliusGoat people saw this new Supreme Court as an opportunity to roll back centuries of precedents in favor of public health and mandatory vaccination, and they got their wish. These same people give zero shits about the bodily autonomy of women, post-partum children, homeless people, or workers. They just want to break all functions of government except those that kill people and break things. They oppose all public health measures not just vaccination programs.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:04:31 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • arceuthobium

     @theothersimo

     Saying the same incorrect generalization about people a second time wont make your argument any less wrong.

     Again as one of the people who was against **mandatory** vaccines but for vaccines I am not just a counter-example to that but know full well just how many people agree with my stance, and it clearly is not less than 1% as you suggest, not even close.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:06:56 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • arceuthobium

     @theothersimo

     I have no interest in debating if it should be mandatory or not, thats another argument and not what this is about... again you misframed the opinion of those people, the fact that you disagree with them is fine, but not the point. Your dishonest representation of their argument is the point, if you had argued against their real argument from the get go (or at least not misrepresented the group) then i would have no problem with you making the argument, even if I feel it is wrong.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     arceuthobium (theothersimo@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:06:57 JST arceuthobium

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • arceuthobium

     @freemo @theothersimo @JuliusGoat a vaccine that’s not mandatory is of little or no value. A total waste of resources to develop a vaccine that’s not deployed systematically. Smallpox was eradicated because police literally held people down and forced the needle into their arms.
     Please cite your source for “very large proportion,” I suspect it is a distant third behind “unconditionally pro vax” and “unconditionally antivax.” If not humanity might be doomed.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:08:38 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Michael Crews

     @midacre

     Incorrect. There were laws that required people to wear masks in public in most states, which is what they objected to. There were similarly requirements to be vaccinated for government employment, which again was considered a violation.

     Almost no one was trying to ban voluntary vaccinations or mask wearing.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     Michael Crews (midacre@mas.to)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:08:39 JST Michael Crews

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat No one was required to be vaccinated. No one was required to wear a mask. They disregarded the bodily autonomy of people they infected by not choosing to take sensible precautions. Bodily autonomy - MY ASS.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:25:48 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • arceuthobium

     @theothersimo

     Well I am strongly against drug tests for welfare recipients, as are most people who take my stance.

     So again, your point?

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     arceuthobium (theothersimo@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:25:49 JST arceuthobium

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • arceuthobium

     @freemo @theothersimo @JuliusGoat I have no idea of your personal beliefs, but anyone who supports drug tests for welfare recipients does not actually believe in bodily autonomy.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:26:17 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • arceuthobium

     @theothersimo

     Cite your source for that 99% figure, sounds absurd and incorrect but feel free to prove it.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     arceuthobium (theothersimo@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 02:26:18 JST arceuthobium

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • arceuthobium

     @freemo @theothersimo @JuliusGoat the opponents to mandatory vaccination have a ~99% overlap with opponents of other public health measures, that’s how I know that for that subset it’s not really about bodily autonomy and is in fact about oppositional/defiant rejection of any sacrifice for the common good.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 03:28:48 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • arceuthobium

     @theothersimo

     You are the kne making the extraordinary claim of 99%. The onus is on you not me. Scientists dont need to debunk fantastical claims without evidence.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     arceuthobium (theothersimo@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 03:28:49 JST arceuthobium

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • arceuthobium

     @freemo @theothersimo @JuliusGoat feel free to support your own point.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 05:06:19 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Zilla

     @ZillaMon

     While some people certainly are as you describe it, they are thr minority of people who hold these views in my expierence.

     This is just the lie and narrative people say so often the left has bought it. And the right has likewise bought similar lies about the left

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     Zilla (zillamon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 05:06:20 JST Zilla

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat You have a habit of misframing things. These rabid and feral things aren't concerned with autonomy, they want to impose their twisted beliefs wrapped in religious madness onto everyone else. If they were interested in autonomy they would not have ransacked public buildings, assaulted mask wearers, blocked streets and attacked other people. No, this is about their insane need to impose their fringe nonsense on others. Shame on you for defending this

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 05:06:56 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Zilla
     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @ZillaMon

     QED for showing the very toxicity of the left i called out, thanks for that.

     @pinkdrunkenelephants @tessarakt @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     Zilla (zillamon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 05:06:57 JST Zilla

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @freemo @pinkdrunkenelephants @tessarakt @JuliusGoat you are very confused if not deluded

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 05:08:43 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Zilla
     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @ZillaMon

     So when you see proof right in my my bio that i stand for bodily autonomy and disprove your very point your only response is to resort to personal attacks.

     Wow your amaxing at proving my point for me, that the left is toxic and unhinged just like the right. You are indistinguishable from a MAGA loon.

     @pinkdrunkenelephants @tessarakt @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     Zilla (zillamon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 11-Mar-2024 05:08:44 JST Zilla

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • tessarakt
     • pinkdrunkenelephants

     @freemo @pinkdrunkenelephants @tessarakt @JuliusGoat "drugs fully legal" per your bio...perhaps you have taken one too many substances that have addled your 1 brain cell.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:28:55 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Coach Pāṇini ®
     • arceuthobium

     @paninid

     In simple terms Liberty is usually defined as freedom from excessive government control (Where excessive being the subjective point).

     In practice I agree its a bit more nuanced than that.

     I'd love to discuss the semantics between these two terms since that seems of interest to you. Lets start by clearly and explicitly stating the definition of interest. Which definition of liberty, preferably from the OED, are we prescribing to here?

     https://www.oed.com/dictionary/liberty_n1?tab=meaning_and_use#39406776

     @theothersimo @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     Coach Pāṇini ® (paninid@mastodon.world)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:28:56 JST Coach Pāṇini ®

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
     • arceuthobium

     @freemo @theothersimo @JuliusGoat

     This nuance is the distinction between the terms “#freedom” and “#liberty”, which get dismissed as a refuge of the pedant, but actually articulate different concepts and implications.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:39:08 JST libramoon

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat

     an unborn fetus has no bodily autonomy -- it is fully imprisoned within the womb

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:39:08 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     So is the logic here that when a person is physically/medically confined to a space they should loose all rights to bodily autonomy, including one's right not to be intentionally killed by another?

     I am not disagreeing with you by the way, just trying to understand the logical precedence you are trying to create.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:43:39 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat

     an unborn fetus is not a functioning person -- it is totally dependent on the host body to survive (could be considered a parasite when not wanted) -- what is applicable to them does not translate to applicable for people generally

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:43:39 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     So no, its not because they are confined to the womb your saying, it is because their life is dependent on another to survive? So is that the criteria in which murder is not murder?

     Again not disagree or agreeing, just trying to understand the rules your setting forth for when a (non-functioning) person should be allowed to be killed intentionally.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:54:09 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat

     not a criteria for murder at all
     do we murder attacking microbes or cure ourselves? it's not even homicide, unless they are developed enough to live outside the womb, but the ending of a process

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:54:09 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     not a criteria for murder at all

     Huh, this is the first time the word murder was used in this thread. I was very careful about my choice of words. I said killed, not murder.

     do we murder attacking microbes or cure ourselves?

     Murder? No, but I didnt ask anything about murder. I asked about killing, and yes, we kill them all the time. How is that relevant? Are you saying a person who is dependent on another to survive is equivalent to microbes?

     it’s not even homicide…

     Again, no one used that word either.

     unless they are developed enough to live outside the womb, but the ending of a process

     Ok so again you didnt answer the question, I asked about killing, I didnt ask about murder or homicide. So your response hasnt really helped me know any better what your stance is.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:57:07 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat

     I wasn't talking about a right to autonomy, but the physical reality of being unable to survive outside of the womb

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 10:57:07 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     Right, we moved on from the general case of autonomy to the specific case of right to life (killing). As you point out as far as bodily autonomy goes since a fetus is entombed in the womb I would tend to agree, the main significant issue of bodily autonomy really is just reduced to, does a fetus have a right to life or not.

     So I am perfectly happy talking about "do we have a right to kill this entity" as a more simplified point for debate that is also entirely equivalent to the original point.

     That said I am still very much at a loss as to what your position is from my last question where I was trying to understand it (but the response didnt help me).

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:03:11 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     , we have a newly forming creature growing within the body of a more mature creature of its kind. When that relationship is desired by the mother, it is wonderful and fulfilling. When that relationship is not desired, it is horrendous, nightmarish. Then, of course, there are the situations when the pregnancy is actually dangerous to the health of the mother, or to the health and well-being of her other children, or. ... https://windsongmyths.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/creating-hell-for-fun-and-profit/

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:03:11 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     we have a newly forming creature growing within the body of a more mature creature of its kind. When that relationship is desired by the mother, it is wonderful and fulfilling. When that relationship is not desired, it is horrendous, nightmarish. Then, of course, there are the situations when the pregnancy is actually dangerous to the health of the mother, or to the health and well-being of her other children, or. …

     I dont disagree with any of those statements. But it also is not an answer to my question, perhaps that is my fault as I may not be asking my question clearly enough, and thus remain confused by your stance. I will retry to ask again.

     Without invoking any statements about the specific case of abortion, in other words, without talking about whombs, mothers, or fetuses (that includes descriptive references), would you mind explaining to me when it is right to kill some entity with human dna. Whether that be a clump of cancer, a fetus, or your best friend, what are the general case where killing a living human entity/thing is acceptable and morally ok.

     Obviously you dont have to cover every possible case, just the rules that, while not referencing abortion, would be relevant in us to reason about abortion would be welcome.

     I think some of your earlier statements could have been examples of this, but you seemed to backtrack (thats not a jab, backtracking is ok, it means we are exploring the ideas and refining them)… like you said one entity physically dependent on another, that would be a fine rule, would even cover cancer… but I think you realized quickly it could also be problematic. Ok so we changed our response slightly, but that didnt work either, again ok. So whats the real answer? One that doesnt just create a circular argument by pointing out its a fetus. We need the general case moral rules we are working under, or at least, I do if im going to get on board.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:04:06 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat

     ultimately, there is no right to life
     we survive until we don't

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:04:06 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     Ok so is the rule there is no rule? Anyone can kill anyone at any time. You have a right to life if you manage to survive?

     Again that would satisfy my question, though it doesnt mean I agree with the answer, as I would not agree to that moral code myself.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:07:33 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     Fair, I think that is an answer that is more agreeable to me and satisfies the question. I appreciate that.

     So in this case I presume we are seeing an abortion as a self-defense against the invasiveness of the fetus?

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:07:34 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     self defense or the defense of others who need that help
     or expressly asked for mercy killing

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:09:01 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat

     clearly, within physical limits, anyone can kill anyone at any time -- are you speaking here of a matter of law, common social acceptance?

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:09:01 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     I am speaking in terms of what the moral/right/just answer is... one could say this is what law **should** be rather than what it is. But some people might argue law should not be morality but rather punishment for harm.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:15:02 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     yes

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:15:02 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     Ok fair, then I think I understand your logic here.

     I do see some problems with it, so it may either be wrong, or at least incomplete. Or perhaps simply an unfair characterization of pregnancy. Or maybe its something else where I am wrong and just have not realized it yet. Lets explore if your willing.

     So I would argue that its more nuanced than this. it depends largely on what the pregnant lady knew, and when, and how she got pregnant. In certain circumstances this is scenario is harder for me to agree with than others.

     For example lets say the woman simply didnt know she was pregnant, or worse yet was raped. In that case its hard to force a child on a woman.

     Lets say the situation is such that the woman knew she was pregnant early on, and engaged in unprotected sex, so the pregnancy is largely an act of negligence on her part for not using protection. Furthermore she gets an abortion late int he process with no particular change in her circumstances that would drive her to do so. Lets also assume she could have afforded it. In this scenario I would say it is the fetus who is in the position it is in due to the negligence and willful actions of the mother. As such it would appear, if I am being objective, that making abortion illegal (in this scenario only) would inf act be required to adhere to your own rules, that is, it would be an act of self-defense on the part of the fetus because the fetus is only in the position of being threatened due to the negligence and willful actions of the woman.

     So while I do feel we are getting closer to a useful world view it still feels inconsistent or incomplete to me.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:16:34 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat

     law as a social code ought not be based on some possibly temporary or local idea of morality, but on the common understandings of the people affected from all perspectives

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:16:34 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     I am not suggesting a subjective morality but rather an objective one.. we all just happen to have different opinions on what that is. As with everything objective, what qualifies as objective is a subjective process.

     The earth is objectively round, I have subjectively arrived at that conclusion.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:21:25 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo @JuliusGoat

     ideally, morality is about being able to live peacefully with others

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:21:25 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     That is not particularly far off from my own definition.

     I seperate moral intent and moral outcome:

     Moral intent - Any action that has the intent of increasing the happiness to suffering ratio in the world

     Moral outcome - Any action which increases the happiness to suffering ratio cumulatively over an infinite amount of time (basically the indefinite integral)

     Its just a very technical way of saying you put less suffering int he world.

     To me peace is certainly an element that gets you there but is not the full picture when it comes to morality.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:25:33 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     why are you making assumptions about fictional women?
     if this pregnant person is indeed aborting this fetus for purely arbitrary reasons -- not because she would be in danger -- then, of course she is doing right by her not to be born child by not giving them both miserable lives

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:25:33 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     why are you making assumptions about fictional women?

     It was neither a fictional woman nor an assumption. It was a category of scenario, that category may never happen, it may happen often, I was showing that certain categories would leave to your application of your rule causing counter intuitive consequences. I am not saying that those scenarios happen, are you saying you are ok with if such a scenario were to happen then abortion would be made illegal to defend the life of the fetus?

     if this pregnant person is indeed aborting this fetus for purely arbitrary reasons – not because she would be in danger – then, of course she is doing right by her not to be born child by not giving them both miserable lives

     So if we could garuntee the baby not to have a miserable life, for example some wonderful family is willing to adopt the baby, then by this logic the abortion should be legally stopped. Doring so would uphold the two criteria you set: self-defense principle for the fetus and not having a miserable life for the fetus.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:42:16 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon Sure, in this scenario you had that conversation and they are the perfect family in every way as far as all investigations go.

     Should the abortion be stopping. You can say no, it just means your moral rules we established are incomplete. Thats fine, we can always endeavor to complete them.

     For the record so far your logic is in line with all my own reasoning on the subject, and in turn found similar paradoxes, things that logically meant i was missing something, and/or wrong... So me pressing you for your logic is not meant to say your wrong, Im only curious how you get over this ethical hurdle and if, whatever that is, might give me some insight on how to further refine my own POV.

     You also can disengage anytime you want, you dont have to answer. I am just making clear why i am drilling you like this, as I want to make it clear it is not to convince you you are wrong, but rather, to elucidate your reasoning for my own consideration.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 18-Mar-2024 11:42:17 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     and the fictional mom? Have we honestly delved her reasons? Is she ok with this adoption? Why legally? The law has no place in these personal matters (even if there are laws that do)
     How about we have a fictional conversation with those involved and see where we are?

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 06:10:01 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     death is the natural result of life
     no one is guaranteed anything
     hopefully we learn to avoid the stupidity of activities that are both bad for us and others, but people tend toward stupidity when not sufficiently motivated to think
     abortion is neither the problem nor the important issue

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 06:10:14 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     abortion is neither the problem nor the important issue

     So you are ok that it is illegal in some states? Because abortion isnt an important issue?

     I would disagree, I’d say its a very important issue and it being illegal in some states is very concerning. It is also concerning to me when late-term abortions are made legal on the other extreme of the issue.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 06:45:14 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     I am ok with medical exemptions being made if it poses a higher than normal risk to the mother and she is only just finding out late.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 06:45:15 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     the point is abortion is not the point -- it is the subjugation of women, which is evil and a majorly important issue

     and most late term abortions are to save the life or health of the mother when a pregnancy has gone wrong -- so illegal to save women's lives

     people don't actively seek out medical procedures without real motivation

     here's a short story that may help
     https://bdelectablemnts.runboard.com/t2681

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 07:28:07 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     complications can occur at any time -- or get worse
     or maybe everyone can be saved if the mother goes on bed rest for the rest of the pregnancy -- so what does she do about other obligations? how is she to pay for this complicated pregnancy while unable to work?
     it's all about life or death, right?
     how about when the baby will have serious health issues? The potential mother is the person who makes these choices for herself and progeny -- let her have the autonomy

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 07:28:07 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     We dont give people the free reign to decide what they want to do with their bodies with any other treatment. Even to get a cancer removed a doctor would need to approve it and decide that the patients life is actually in danger. Why should abortions be the only exception?

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 07:34:27 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     So youd be ok with people getting any drug they want without a prescription or restriction as well as any surgery or procedure no matter how ill advised?

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 07:34:28 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     we ought to be giving people that bodily autonomy -- in my experience, doctors are not gods, judges, juries or very good at listening to their clients' concerns or facts

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 07:39:06 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     And in that exchange who gets the final say. If the doctor thinks its completely wreckless and the patient wants said drug or procedure anyway, who gets the final say?

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 07:39:07 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     I am ok with people deciding what they want and telling the people they need to help them with that, and said helpers having the autonomy to agree or explain why not, enter into dialog to figure out what would work for all concerned.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 07:41:18 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     Agreed, but that didnt answer my question.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 07:41:19 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     there are other professionals, and the black market -- it's not an either/or if the person is strongly motivated

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:09:19 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     Then clearly I missed it... yes or no, if someone wants to get any procedure or drug and the doctor doesnt agree, should the doctors decision be honored (meaning the patient now needs to go to the black market), or is the patients request to be honored (they are given the drug or procedure despite the doctors saying no)?

     Obviously if you did answer it I am too stupid to know which of those answers it was, please help me out.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:09:20 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     yes, it did

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:31:47 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     it is not either/or

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:31:47 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     How is it not? Either legally the doctor gets the call or the patient... how can it be something in between?

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:38:34 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon Ok so the doctor **must** approve in order to move forward (otherwise they are not mutually agreeing). So the answer is, the doctor has the authority and the final say. Any situation that requires mutual agreement is the same as giving the doctor the authority, which is the same as states that outlaw abortion but make medical exemptions, which, based on how you say it should work, would be what you support.

     I myself dont agree with that. I do not think abortions should be illegal, they should be legal but only under very specific conditions. Late term abortions would and should need doctors to agree with the patients that it is medically needed (which apparently you also think should be the case).

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:38:35 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     because I suggested dialog to a mutually satisfactory conclusion, or, obviously these two parties can't meet and another solution will be found if the person is sufficiently motivated
     I am not talking about arbitrary laws, but actual possibilities
     often a dr. is more concerned with liability than the patient's needs

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:42:11 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon Right, thats how it is in states where abortion is illegal. When the doctor says no the patient can etiher keep going to doctors until one says yes, the procedure is medically needed, or they go on the blackmarket for a solution.

     Obviously as you pointed out one way or another the patient will get their way, but since you qould require a doctor to agree the doctor has final say in the sense that you still need a doctor to agree to the medical need.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:42:12 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     no, the doctor only gets that doctor's say -- the final say is when the patient gets their way or decides on some other option

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:43:37 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon I have reviewed everything you said and made an honest effort to understand you. Obviously you dont think I have, and maybe I havent, but the effort was in earnest, and still is.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:43:38 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo
     apparently you are making major assumptions and not actually understanding what I have been saying

     have you read the posts on the links I gave you? if what you want is to know my positions, read them

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:51:21 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     But thats not what I asked. I didnt ask if they simply agree with if they feel its morally right. I asked if they need to do what they do with every single other disease, which is evaluate if treating the disease puts more life at risk than it saves.. you cant get cancer removed if it isnt actually a risk to your life. It isnt because the doctor "doesnt want to", its because medically a doctor must show that removing the cancer reduces the risk to the patient(s). They explicitly must evaluate the life and safety concerns, not simply "if they want to".

     Ergo I asked if abortions should be treated the same as cancer, that is, it will only be performed if there is actual medical risk to the patient.

     My view is no, it shouldnt be viewed the same as cancer... early on it should be removed regardless of risk, later on liffe and safety issues should be considered like they would with other ailments.

     As for your view, I'm not as clear on that. But it seems you think abortions should be considered a special case from all other disease too, but in this case that it should be exempt from considerations of risk to life and be purely the choice of the patient?

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:51:22 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     of course the dr. must agree -- we can't be forcing medical professionals to do what they believe wrong -- but that one dr. is far from the only option, maybe even in the same facility
     or the patient can find other kinds of healthcare than mainstream
     I've even heard of self-surgery

     and there are all kinds of medical procedures done for reasons other than medical need

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:51:57 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     I most certainly do not support states that outlaw abortion in any way -- this should not be a matter of law

     Late term, any term, it ought to be up to the potential mother
     that doesn't mean I support forcing anyone to perform anything

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:51:57 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     On that we disagree as well, much as we would have disagreed if you thought all abortion should be outlawed i also disagree that all abortion should be legal.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:57:01 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     again, outside the purview of law

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:57:01 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon Which is where we disagree. I would say it is very much inside the purview of law and should be. Both the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy and the right of the fetus should be considered asnd t he nuance in such things considered to determine when it should be legal or not.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:59:41 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon

     Those two sound like the same things with different wording. Taking tylenol for a headach is a "personal choice" too, its still a medical procedure and has moral considerations like any other. Doubly so if another life is involved.

     But for me this is a bit of a tangent. I actually would myself make all medical procedures and drugs that involve just you (most of them) legal and remove any authority from doctors... But I would make late term abortions illegal all the same, in fact, I'd make all abortions afgter 3 months illegal with the caveat that abortions are free (tax paid) and pregnancy tests are provided for free (tax paid) as well.

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 19-Mar-2024 08:59:42 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     pregnancy is not a disease
     abortion is not disease treatment (although it can be)
     it is a personal choice based on factors that the pregnant person is dealing with, whether medical or otherwise

   • Embed this notice
     libramoon (libramoon@mastodon.social)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Mar-2024 05:11:26 JST libramoon

     in reply to

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     clearly you are not interested in what I have to say (or what you say)
     done here

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Mar-2024 05:11:26 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon I am very interested, just busy right now on a call.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Mar-2024 05:29:17 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • libramoon

     @libramoon I am out of my meeting now, I can reply.

     So yea, sorry you feel that way I was just busy and would have responded sooner.

     I do care about your opinions, as I said I am at an impasse with my own logic and morality and thus am genuinely interested in yours in the hope that it might give me some insight to resolve my own stance, which has holes in it.

     So to be clear, I am not interested neccesarly on all your thoughts or perspetives (though happy to listen to them), I am specifically interested in the general moral code and how I might apply that to a resolution for myself.

     Hope that clarifies for you.

   • Embed this notice
     mzan (mzan@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Mar-2024 09:12:10 JST mzan

     • 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     @freemo

     > It was the lack of bodily autonomy.

     As (partially unrelated) side note, if we see the "big picture", we have no full "bodily autonomy", because we live in a society influencing what we eat, drink and breathe, i.e. many things that affects our body and our health are influenced a lot by laws and society behavior, and not only from our direct choices.

     It is an eternal balance between how much we are single entities or parts of a group. IMHO, in many cases vaccines require to act like a group, and not as an individual, because with our behavior we are influencing other people.

     It depends also from the type of vaccine obviously. For example, in case of COVID, in the end the vaccine was effective only for the variants before the omicron, because it reduced the stress on the sanitary system. But in this case, a nation can also decide to reduce assistance to no-vaccinated people.

     @JuliusGoat

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Wednesday, 20-Mar-2024 09:15:50 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • mzan

     @mzan @JuliusGoat

     As (partially unrelated) side note, if we see the “big picture”, we have no full “bodily autonomy”, because we live in a society influencing what we eat, drink and breathe, i.e. many things that affects our body and our health are influenced a lot by laws and society behavior, and not only from our direct choices.

     I guess it depends on what “incluenced” means.. like ok so there are ads and easy access to shitty food. But those incluences arent a lack of bodily autonomy, I can choose to ignore the ads, I can choose not to buy the shitty stuff.

     That said I think there is some truth to that, especially when we consider poorer people who really have no choice but to stick garbage in their body because healthy eating tends to cost more.

     It is an eternal balance between how much we are single entities or parts of a group. IMHO, in many cases vaccines require to act like a group, and not as an individual, because with our behavior we are influencing other people.

     I tend to view people as having a choice what influences them. We pick our influences, where we look and what we choose. You are only as part of the group as much as you choose to be.. that said I do recognize there are certain things that effect us we dont have control over.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Thursday, 21-Mar-2024 05:21:09 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     @JuliusGoat

     Correction, it wasnt the "tiny act of harm reduction" they were against. It was the lack of bodily autonomy. Which for the record is the same reason they are against abortions, it violates the bodily autonomy of the unborn baby.

     I am not saying i agree with them (I am pro-abortion for example). But lets not misframe their argument just so we can appear correct either.