For decades, their slogan was "My Body, My Choice."
But then, they supported coercive vaccine mandates. Very vocally. They even tried to censor any public discussion about potential harms of vaccines, the criminal histories of the corporations pushing them, and the cor/ruption of the regulatory process that led to their approval. They went full-on authoritarian, using "public health" as pretext.
And now they don't really have their old arguments to fall back on anymore.
So what is the Democrats' actual rationale for supporting abortion so strongly, if they clearly have no actual ideological foundation for supporting an individual's absolute right to medically control their own body in all circumstances? What is their actual argument here?
What is the actual position of Democrats on "bodily autonomy"?
-
-
You did shart job of arguing the harmful effects of vaccines. Demz need to stop freaking out about abortion, but ur not that bright.
I said:
"They even tried to censor any public discussion about potential harms of vaccines, the criminal histories of the corporations pushing them, and the cor/ruption of the regulatory process that led to their approval."This is not a statement attempting to assert anything definitive about vaccine harms at all. The point of this thread is not really to debate vaccines. The point is that Democrats very vocally insisted that humans should not enjoy any right to bodily autonomy. Seeing as this is their ideology now, that people have no right to medically control their own body in any case in which a "greater good" is invoked by the power structure that is seen as more important than individual bodily autonomy, it's just puzzling exactly what their particular argument defending abortion so strongly even would be.
They're arguing that it would be appropriate to mandate vaccines because individuals should have no right to medical autonomy, but that there should be a constitutional right to abortion because... why? I don't understand what consistent principle they're now trying to argue from regarding abortion.
Is there a consistent principle? That question is why I posted this thread.
-
Rather obviously. Democrats see getting vaccinated and having abortions as normative and safe medical procedures. Vaccines often/abortions sometimes necessary, so they encourage widespread access on these grounds as well. The medical institutions they value encourage having both available as medical rights.
There are others, but these are the most obvious. The insight that sometimes they want government intervention and sometimes they don't is not interesting at all. That's virtually every political demographic, except for certain variations of anarchists and perhaps some confused, extreme leftists. I'd imagine even they have exceptions. People's political worldviews rarely come from simply one moral commitment, i.e. valuing autonomy. And situational (as well as other ethics) allows moral hierarchies where certain issues over ride others.
As a conservative poli-sci bro, I almost completely disagree on abortion. But the st u pi d meme you're circulating isn't onto anything worth repeating.
-
Rather obviously. Democrats see getting vaccinated and having abortions as normative and safe medical procedures. Vaccines often/abortions sometimes necessary, so they encourage widespread access on these grounds as well. The medical institutions they value encourage having both available as medical rights.
This does not resemble what they've argued in the past, at all.
"My body, my choice" was literally their slogan, constantly used. Pro-choice sociologists are still today invoking "autonomy" now in regards to their objections to Roe's overturning.You also entirely flipped/reversed matters.
We're dealing with two comparable views on bodily autonomy --
"I don't want the government coercively determining my medical treatment."
Your argument would only make sense if Democrats argued in support of the state's authority to mandate abortion in many circumstances, rather than arguing in support of allowing individual choice regarding abortion.So, you're saying that government *mandating* vaccines and government *allowing* abortions are somehow "equivalent" to Democrats, merely because they see these both as "normative and safe medical procedures." Your argument would only make sense if Democrats were arguing in support of mandating abortions, which to my knowledge almost no one have ever done.
Instead we see an "individual freedom vs. greater good" dichotomy in both cases. Democrats as a party are literally arguing from both sides on this.
You've completely ignored the actual reasoning of Roe v. Wade and the principles underlying that ruling in order to say that Democrats think a consitutional right to abortion should exist because they vaguely see it as "safe and normative" (whatever "normative" would even mean here or how that would translate to a constitutional right). Roe v. Wade is premised on individuals having right to privacy regarding medical treatment, which effectively tran
...See full post -
You've completely ignored the actual reasoning of Roe v. Wade and the principles underlying that ruling in order to say that Democrats think a consitutional right to abortion should exist because they vaguely see it as "safe and normative" (whatever "normative" would even mean here or how that would translate to a constitutional right). Roe v. Wade is premised on individuals having right to privacy regarding medical treatment, which effectively tran
...See full post
slates into a right to bodily medical autonomy. Conservatives have argued that no such right exists in the Constitution.To my knowledge no Democrat has explained how the principles they see as underlying a constitutional right to medical privacy (implicit in Roe, which you have not addressed) would be consistent with their extreme desire to mandate vaccinations. You seem to be ignoring all actual political rhetoric used on this issue by Democrats and to be imagining their arguments are entirely different than any we've ever seen in reality.
As a conservative poli-sci bro, I almost completely disagree on abortion. But the st u pi d meme you're circulating isn't onto anything worth repeating.
I never called myself conservative, and yet this seems like concern trolling from you seeing as you're just rhetorically winging it and have not substantively dealt with any actual political principles involved at all. You're obviously not a poli-sci professor, but I can believe you're an undergrad who has taken a few poli-sci courses.
You seem to have never read the text of the Roe decision and to be entirely unfamiliar with the arguments that have always been historically used by activists who support legality of abortion.
Maybe you are a Republican and that's why you can't reasonably articulate what Democrats think, I'm not sure. -
read the literature on values. This is not how values work. You can't word backward from a policy position to infer an entire group of people's values, and we know that values are a fairly modest predictor of most policy attitudes anyway.
If this is another way to say, "Democrats aren't actually arguing from a position of political principle," I'll accept that answer.
-
OP, your freaking out and arguing against a lot of straw men. I never called you conservative. I said I am. Chill, the, eff, out.
Let's deal with the first issue raised. You asked rather straightforwardly if there were any principles the Democrats are operating from which make being pro-choice and pro-vaccine mandates consistent. You asked for any consistent principle. Not for a systematic political ideology in which no two principle commitments come into conflict. That's moving the goalpost.
And you haven't addressed that, so it stands. Both ideas are consistent with with the public health commitments I mentioned, even if they conflict with other questions--which is a different issue.
Either argue against that, specifically, or concede it. Then we'll talk about how it fits into their broader political ideologies.
-
You asked rather straightforwardly if there were any principles the Democrats are operating from which make being pro-choice and pro-vaccine mandates consistent. You asked for any consistent principle. Not for a systematic political ideology in which no two principle commitments come into conflict. That's moving the goalpost.
I think you don't understand at all what a "principle" is. I'm not sure if English is not your first language? You have a dictionary around or at least google?
nm I'll handle it for you:
principle
/ˈprɪnsɪp(ə)l/
1.
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
"the basic principles of justice"
2.
a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.The first definition here is the one that's relevant.
-
Also, your tone and style indicate you to be someone who constantly argues in this exact same half-witted way rather often on this site (down to the same poor grasp of logic) who has never identified as a poli-sci person or a conservative before, so I'm calling b.s. on that.
-
Are vaccine mandates and pro-choice policies both consistent with the commitments I said Democrats are committed to or not?
Answer directly, or I'll treat your angry bloviating as a concession.You stated that liberal Democrats view both abortion and vaccines as "safe and normative." You argued in a way that would seem to indicate they would support similar policies for either -- which would make sense only if Democrats were pushing to mandate abortions in many scenarios. The entire PR marketing frame of the issue by Democrats as "Pro-Choice" indicating their prioritizing of individual autonomy belies your framing. You also haven't addressed anything at all about the internal reasoning of the Roe v. Wade decision nor provided any evidence that you are even aware of that reasoning.
Liberal Democrats argue that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right on the basis of the reasoning in the Roe decision. -
Checklist:
-unreasonably angry, check!
-simultaneously seeking conflict and approval, check!
-poor logic, check!
-overwrought reactions, check!
-no substantive engagement with counter arguments, check!
-writing quality of an undergraduate over-blogger, check!^Hi S! Great to see you made it out here today!
-
For all of your trolling of this site, I'll give you this: You often provoke reactions from quite intelligent people who know a lot about the topic that you are trolling on. Their knowledge, command of argumentation and writing are often the perfect foil to your nonsense.
-
-unreasonably angry, check!
Where's the anger? Why are you projecting your own anger onto me?
-simultaneously seeking conflict and approval, check!
Say what now?
-poor logic, check!
You don't understand what a "principle" is, then pretended you never used the word and shifted to "commitment," then showed you still haven't audited the undergrad PHI logic course even after all these years.
You've obviously never taken an undergrad course in either poli-sci or philosophy, and you're obviously not a conservative, so why are you lying about your identity while also pretending I'm whatever made-up troll persona you blame whenever you lose arguments this badly?-writing quality of an undergraduate over-blogger, check!
You don't know even what the word "principle" means, indicating you flunked high school English and your writing quality is below 12th grade level. But I guess that's who's filling the sociology departments these days...