Video: Lone cyclist stops ‘People’s Convoy’ trucker protest in Washington DC

Whilst I agree that both areas represent public health policy you can't ignore that they both also fall squarely under the bodily autonomy/personal freedom umbrella.

Personally I support the freedom of choice in both areas.

At the start of the pandemic I think strict public health measures to the detriment of personal freedoms were probably justified but I don't think that is the case in the UK/US any longer.

Rich_cb wrote:

Whilst I agree that both areas represent public health policy you can't ignore that they both also fall squarely under the bodily autonomy/personal freedom umbrella. Personally I support the freedom of choice in both areas. At the start of the pandemic I think strict public health measures to the detriment of personal freedoms were probably justified but I don't think that is the case in the UK/US any longer.

Well yes, but there's a huge gulf between being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy (which invariably leads to back-street abortions) and being asked to wear a mask in certain areas. Whether or not a mask is particularly effective at controlling spread is an interesting question and we could do with more information on that, although it seems a minor inconvenience to most people. Mandating vaccinations is clearly a minefield and I'm somewhat undecided about whether that is something that is required (I've had all my jabs and booster).

One thing that I felt was a wrong move was when organisations (pubs, clubs, airlines etc) were going to use a vaccination card as a proxy for determining if someone was infectious or not. That is a clear mis-use of the vaccination records and just led to some people forging vaccination cards. It also had the potential to marginalise people with compromised immune systems that are unable to have vaccinations.

One curiousity of the U.S. is that despite cries of bodily autonomy, they have remarkably high level of circumcisions (over 50% back in 2006 according to http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/).

I think you're right that masks are an inconvenience at best. That said it is still a restriction of personal freedom and one that doesn't seem to deliver much in the way of benefit with the latest variants. It's also the most visible sign of the restrictions in place, that's probably why they are such a contentious issue.

Vaccinations are a reasonable proxy IMO, a number of people will die from vaccination and whilst that risk is very small once the state starts mandating vaccination or imposing significant restrictions on the unvaccinated then it can be considered an absolute violation of bodily and personal autonomy.

You mean like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAHJCPoWCC8

(I'm not aware of anyone up in arms about fluoridation of the water any more - Update: Wikipedia suggests people are still concerned about this.)

On the flip side once laws are there it is very common that they continue to be used and beyond their original remit.  Example being the misuse of anti-terrorism laws in the UK.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think you're right that masks are an inconvenience at best. That said it is still a restriction of personal freedom and one that doesn't seem to deliver much in the way of benefit with the latest variants. It's also the most visible sign of the restrictions in place, that's probably why they are such a contentious issue. Vaccinations are a reasonable proxy IMO, a number of people will die from vaccination and whilst that risk is very small once the state starts mandating vaccination or imposing significant restrictions on the unvaccinated then it can be considered an absolute violation of bodily and personal autonomy.

I can't get behind the argument that wearing masks is an affront to personal freedom (although technically it is a restriction) as there's plenty of similar restrictions throughout society. Plenty of shops will refuse service if customers aren't wearing shirts (or indeed trousers) and that is hardly related to public health, but merely an invented convention. Similarly, banks and post offices don't like people to wander in wearing motorcycle helmets (or even the innocent wearing of tights over your face) and yet there's no similar call for 'freedom' when people face those restrictions.

I think you misinterpreted my use of the word proxy - I intended to compare the use of vaccination cards to the state of being virus free which aren't strongly correlated. However, I think the risks of covid vaccination are often over-stated in arguments and people encounter similar low-risk hazards every time they step outside and cross the road, or eat a prepared bagged salad from a supermarket. But, I do agree with you that mandatory covid vaccinations is a step too far - the long term benefit is inconclusive, so it's pretty much a shot in the dark (or arm).

However, we do accept vaccination of children as a matter of course and such programs have been very successful, so I'm inclined to think that a lot of the arguments against covid vaccinations are disingenuous or at least misinformed (I'm not including your arguments in that group, however).

hawkinspeter wrote:

I did see some rumour that a state was looking to make even ectopic pregnancy terminations illegal which just seems insane to me if true

IIRC one of their congressman said that if a doctor didn't re-implant that ectopic pregnancy right back where it was supposed to be then they'd be liable for charges for abortion or murder or something.

Shortly after that, someone pointed out that the technology and procedures to do that do not exist, and that they felt perhaps he'd misunderstood what an ectopic pregnancy actually was...

hawkinspeter wrote:

What's concerning about some of the republican views ...

Abortion ban modeled on Texas law advances in Tennessee

Bill allows anyone – even relatives of rapists – to sue abortion providers and empowers investigators to question any woman who loses a pregnancy

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/21/abortion-ban-texas-advance...

Quote:

The Tennessee state house is considering a “Texas-style” abortion ban that would allow relatives, friends, neighbors and the spouse of a rapist to sue anyone who provides or assists in the provision of abortion services to his victim.

The bill, which would ban abortion entirely with no exceptions for rape or incest, cleared one hurdle last week, when a health subcommittee passed it.

The bill is modeled after the Texas six-week ban, which the US supreme court let stand.

brooksby wrote:

Abortion ban modeled on Texas law advances in Tennessee

Bill allows anyone – even relatives of rapists – to sue abortion providers and empowers investigators to question any woman who loses a pregnancy

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/21/abortion-ban-texas-advance...

Quote:

The Tennessee state house is considering a “Texas-style” abortion ban that would allow relatives, friends, neighbors and the spouse of a rapist to sue anyone who provides or assists in the provision of abortion services to his victim.

The bill, which would ban abortion entirely with no exceptions for rape or incest, cleared one hurdle last week, when a health subcommittee passed it.

The bill is modeled after the Texas six-week ban, which the US supreme court let stand.

Well, at least that takes the sting out of the inevitable collapse of late-stage capitalism and global environmental catastrophe.

hawkinspeter wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Abortion ban modeled on Texas law advances in Tennessee

Bill allows anyone – even relatives of rapists – to sue abortion providers and empowers investigators to question any woman who loses a pregnancy

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/21/abortion-ban-texas-advance...

Quote:

The Tennessee state house is considering a “Texas-style” abortion ban that would allow relatives, friends, neighbors and the spouse of a rapist to sue anyone who provides or assists in the provision of abortion services to his victim.

The bill, which would ban abortion entirely with no exceptions for rape or incest, cleared one hurdle last week, when a health subcommittee passed it.

The bill is modeled after the Texas six-week ban, which the US supreme court let stand.

Well, at least that takes the sting out of the inevitable collapse of late-stage capitalism and global environmental catastrophe.

Late stage capitalism... making £10k a pop when the girl your husband/son/brother etc raped aborts the pregnancy resulting from the rape.

And that's not my rabid feminist hysteria*, that fuckwits bringing the bill have confirmed it.

*pun intended

Rich_cb wrote:

TriTaxMan wrote:

Yes the conservative States are the worst for hipocrisy. They consistently fought against covid mask and vaccine mandates because apparently it is their body so they should have a choice about such things, but women are not allowed the choice to have an abortion.

Flip that around and you can see the hypocrisy cuts both ways. SNL did a pretty good sketch about it, was called 'Guess if I'm Republican' or something like that. Worth a look.

I will admit that is also one way to look at the situation.  But in reality it is far more nuanced than that.

Vaccine and mask mandates.... there were always exceptions for those who have valid reasons for not wearing a mask or for having the vaccine.  And they were considered for the good of the entire population

Last time I checked one of the biggest criticisms is that for the anti-abortion laws (in Texas particularly) there are no exceptions.... if a woman has been subject to a sexual assault.... it's illegal to have an abortion, if a woman has a condition which puts their life at risk if they were to carry the child to term.... its illegal to have an abortion.

Once you invoke 'the greater good' you're always in a tricky situation.

There will be many people in the US who argue that an abortion ban is good for society as a whole even if it leads to significant harm for individuals.

The same argument is used in favour of mandatory vaccination.

Your viewpoint on either will depend on how much weight you place on the respective harms and benefits.

Rich_cb wrote:

Once you invoke 'the greater good' you're always in a tricky situation.

Isn't improving the greater good the main reason for society and very much the whole basis for humans living in groups?

It is.

However, most benefits of that result from changes that are beneficial for all.

For example, 'shall we spend public money building a sewer so that our town doesn't smell as bad and fewer of us die of cholera?'.

Rather than, 'Shall we sacrifice a few people's lives in the hope that it will improve the lives of those of us still breathing?'

Both are 'For the greater good', one is much harder to justify.

Rich_cb wrote:

It is. However, most benefits of that result from changes that are beneficial for all. For example, 'shall we spend public money building a sewer so that our town doesn't smell as bad and fewer of us die of cholera?'. Rather than, 'Shall we sacrifice a few people's lives in the hope that it will improve the lives of those of us still breathing?' Both are 'For the greater good', one is much harder to justify.

You just reminded me of this interesting philosphical game: https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default.aspx

It's interesting that people are much more likely to subscribe to a policy that may end up resulting in people's deaths than they are to a policy that will directly kill some people (even if it's a smaller number of people).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

It is. However, most benefits of that result from changes that are beneficial for all. For example, 'shall we spend public money building a sewer so that our town doesn't smell as bad and fewer of us die of cholera?'. Rather than, 'Shall we sacrifice a few people's lives in the hope that it will improve the lives of those of us still breathing?' Both are 'For the greater good', one is much harder to justify.

You just reminded me of this interesting philosphical game: https://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default.aspx

It's interesting that people are much more likely to subscribe to a policy that may end up resulting in people's deaths than they are to a policy that will directly kill some people (even if it's a smaller number of people).

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  Or of the one.

I heard that somewhere; can't remember where...

That was interesting.

I did a lot better, in terms of consistency, on the trolley problem than the backpacker one.

Rich_cb wrote:

That was interesting. I did a lot better, in terms of consistency, on the trolley problem than the backpacker one.

It's a while since I did it - I remember disagreeing about the efficacy of information gained through torture, but that's not really the point of it.

Anyhow, here's the ultimate trolley problem

Are we talking about the original Sisyphus, or the one that was created in the transporter accident?

mdavidford wrote:

Are we talking about the original Sisyphus, or the one that was created in the transporter accident?

I thought there was an infinite number (though countable) of Sisyphuses (Sisyphusi?) created in that incident - they're all on the 1st floor of Hilbert's hotel.

hawkinspeter wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

Are we talking about the original Sisyphus, or the one that was created in the transporter accident?

I thought there was an infinite number (though countable) of Sisyphuses (Sisyphusi?) created in that incident - they're all on the 1st floor of Hilbert's hotel.

Well, anyway, I think a more pertinent question is - could a butterfly have dreamed all this?

mdavidford wrote:

Well, anyway, I think a more pertinent question is - could a butterfly have dreamed all this?

A butterfly once dreamt that it was me.

I imagine Sisyphus is happy.

A change is as good as a rest and all that.

Rich_cb wrote:

Once you invoke 'the greater good' you're always in a tricky situation. There will be many people in the US who argue that an abortion ban is good for society as a whole even if it leads to significant harm for individuals. The same argument is used in favour of mandatory vaccination. Your viewpoint on either will depend on how much weight you place on the respective harms and benefits.

From my perspective however there is a serious mismatch in the two arguments.

The majority of individuals who are Anti-covid regulations....they don't want to be subject to the regulations because it is their body.....

The majority of individuals who are Anti-Abortion...... they want the regulations to be enforced because the don't like the principal of something happening to someone elses body.  Survey's estimate that only 40% women in Texas were in favour of the ban on abortions.... yet somehow men (the majority of whom supported the ban) were ultimately the ones that made the decision on something that would never affect them.

If you flip the perspective again:

Those in favour of COVID restrictions (eg mandatory vaccination) want the regulations to be enforced because the don't like the principle of something happening to someone else's body.

Those against Abortion restrictions want people to be free to decide what to do with their own bodies and, in the case of pro-choice women, don't want to be subject to the regulations because it is their body.

The issue of gender does complicate the Abortion argument somewhat as obviously women are directly affected by the legislation far more than men but the basic principles above do still apply.

Rich_cb wrote:

If you flip the perspective again: Those in favour of COVID restrictions (eg mandatory vaccination) want the regulations to be enforced because the don't like the principle of something happening to someone else's body. Those against Abortion restrictions want people to be free to decide what to do with their own bodies and, in the case of pro-choice women, don't want to be subject to the regulations because it is their body. The issue of gender does complicate the Abortion argument somewhat as obviously women are directly affected by the legislation far more than men but the basic principles above do still apply.

If you just look solely at vaccines we can come to the crux of the matter...... some people value their rights more than their responsibilities in a civilised society.  Their right not to take a vaccine outweighs their responsibility to others.  As has been proved the vaccine has broken the link between infection and serious illness/death in relation to covid.

But the big difference is that rights and responsibilities in relation to Abortions are in general in sync with each other.  The only people impacted by having or not having an abortion in general is the woman involved.  I've never heard of any third parties life being put at risk during an abortion. 

Which kind of leads back to your previous point of "There will be many people in the US who argue that an abortion ban is good for society as a whole even if it leads to significant harm for individuals."..... I would openly challenge anyone to provide any tangible benefit in support of that theory.

TriTaxMan wrote:

 

But the big difference is that rights and responsibilities in relation to Abortions are in general in sync with each other.  The only people impacted by having or not having an abortion in general is the woman involved.  I've never heard of any third parties life being put at risk during an abortion.

 

Au contraire, it is exactly that one (or possibly more) lives are not just put at risk but definitively ended which those who are anti are objecting to. (I ain't one of them, just that's very definitely the way they say they see it.  Yes, I know we all then go into "what's meant by human life?" after that and I do not wish to bring this upon this gentle forum...)

This is where it's vital to understand the other side's perspective.

From a religious anti abortion perspective (and I must stress once more this is not my perspective) human life begins at conception.

Any deliberate ending of human life is murder.

Each abortion is therefore a murder.

From that perspective if you stopped all abortions you'd massively reduce the murder rate. As a consequence the harm caused by stopping abortions would be outweighed by the good of stopping all the murders.

It would be for the 'Greater Good'.

Vaccines have indeed broken the link between COVID infection and serious illness but that only directly effects the person who chooses whether or no to have the vaccine.

Vaccines don't appear to have any lasting effect on infections themselves so the argument that society benefits from lower rates of infection appears to be shaky.

Rich_cb wrote:

This is where it's vital to understand the other side's perspective.

From a religious anti abortion perspective (and I must stress once more this is not my perspective) human life begins at conception.

Any deliberate ending of human life is murder.

Each abortion is therefore a murder.

From that perspective if you stopped all abortions you'd massively reduce the murder rate. As a consequence the harm caused by stopping abortions would be outweighed by the good of stopping all the murders.

It would be for the 'Greater Good'.

Vaccines have indeed broken the link between COVID infection and serious illness but that only directly effects the person who chooses whether or no to have the vaccine.

Vaccines don't appear to have any lasting effect on infections themselves so the argument that society benefits from lower rates of infection appears to be shaky.

Unfortunately, for the vast majority claiming they are stopping murder, they could just given men the snip until such time they can consensually bring a life into the world. No sperm, no conception, no "murder". And reversible... unlike an ectopic pregnancy that some of these fuckwits tried to legislate against.

They'll never go for it which is why I call bullshit on these stated beliefs.

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

Unfortunately, for the vast majority claiming they are stopping murder, they could just given men the snip until such time they can consensually bring a life into the world. No sperm, no conception, no "murder". And reversible... unlike an ectopic pregnancy that some of these fuckwits tried to legislate against. They'll never go for it which is why I call bullshit on these stated beliefs.

Some religions frown on birth control, so that may not be a viable solution.

Personally, I find it extremely distasteful that people try to encode specific religious beliefs into law though maybe that's my atheism talking.

hawkinspeter wrote:

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

Unfortunately, for the vast majority claiming they are stopping murder, they could just given men the snip until such time they can consensually bring a life into the world. No sperm, no conception, no "murder". And reversible... unlike an ectopic pregnancy that some of these fuckwits tried to legislate against. They'll never go for it which is why I call bullshit on these stated beliefs.

Some religions frown on birth control, so that may not be a viable solution.

Personally, I find it extremely distasteful that people try to encode specific religious beliefs into law though maybe that's my atheism talking.

I completely agree, I was trying to show the logic employed just doesn't work.