1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!
Guest1 Guest2 Guest3

Vaccine mandate and abortion

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by neon zone, Sep 12, 2021.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 1 of 5
  1. neon zone

    neon zone Trusted Member

    I have seen many people interchanging between the two, do you think it is hypocrisy if a person support one but not the other.
    WARNING!! please refrain from flaming when replying, lets try to keep the discussion civil
     
    neon zone, Sep 12, 2021
    #1
  2. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    It depends on how you frame the question. The reason people are for or against these things determine the outcome.

    Its possible to be for Vaccine Mandates and against Abortion without hypocrisy.
    Its possible to be against Vaccine Mandates and for Abortion without hypocrisy.
    Its possible to be against Vaccine Mandates and against Abortion without hypocrisy.
    Its not possible to be for Vaccine Mandates and for Abortion without hypocrisy.
     
    Neophyte, Sep 13, 2021
    #2
    didibhai and Dane like this.
  3. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    Excellent way to put it Neo!
     
    Dane, Sep 13, 2021
    #3
  4. neon zone

    neon zone Trusted Member

    Why would this be not possible when the for side of both are saying it saves lives?
     
    neon zone, Sep 16, 2021
    #4
  5. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    Because it's telling someone you want control over their body.

    I am pro-life, therefor I am against vaccine mandate.

    I don't want control over a someone else's body, including a pregnant woman's body, but I don't believe
    she has a right to kill the un-born.
    I am not wanting control over her body, I am wanting a life within her the chance to live too.

    But for those who are pro-choice are hypocrites in the eyes of the pro-life.

    The baby is in her body, but the hypocrisy is she screams and demands she doesn't want anyone but her to
    have control of her own body, and yet she wants 100% control of even life or death over someone's else's
    body, the baby's.

    The difference lies in the fact that those who are pro-choice don't believe an un-born baby is another body.

    Pro-lifers don't want "control", they want a to protect an innocent's life.
    You have the right to stop someone from murdering you, or killing someone else,
    including killing the murderer.
    That's in both Moral and Legislative Law.
    We just want those same rights applied to the unborn. Not to kill the pregnant women to stop her
    from killing the baby of course, but those laws of self-preservation applied.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2021
    Dane, Sep 16, 2021
    #5
    EggHead, neon zone and Neophyte like this.
  6. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

     
    Neophyte, Sep 17, 2021
    #6
  7. neon zone

    neon zone Trusted Member

    If you are pro life then you would support vaccine mandate as it there to save lives. What most pro lifers says is they are pro life for abortion, but pro choice for vaccine that's why you hear them saying "My Body, My Choice". Most of them do defend by mentioning vaccinated breakthrough cases, however if they are pro choice it should not change their stance to supporting mandates.

    It's the same the other way round, most pro choice are pro choice for abortion but support vaccine mandate and say it is to support public health and saving lives. They also do say abortion save lives because they believe the law will not stop women aborting and will likely go to back alley abortion where most will die.

    They do not say baby they say it is a clump of cells, embryo or fetus and say it is not viable so the choice is the mother and usually use rape case to defend it being the mother's choice.

    Pro choice says the same, they don't want "control", they want a to protect public health and use the same sentence about murder.

    Pro choice don't say pro life want to kill pregnant women, they say they want to force them to deliver it and only care until she gave birth.

    Most of what you said is the same as what pro choice said about vaccine mandate, protecting public health, both sides are saying the same but for the opposite debate.
     
    neon zone, Sep 18, 2021
    #7
  8. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Government yes. They can not "make you" per se. The USSC has decisions that potentially say it can be forced. But that is Grey at best.

    If, tomorrow, I went in and set a policy in the Bars or the Firm? That everyone must be vaccinated? I am legally within my rights. Because (outside of being elected mayor THREE FUCKING TIMES NOW because I am unopposed and NEVER ACTUALLY RAN) I am not the government. And they are employed "at will" (besides my law partners, but they all are since they are my BILs and 2 SILs and Wife and we all went together). I can fire them for not following that instruction.

    Side note. My victories are 19-0. 17-0. 26-0. All write ins. I dont want to do this and basically have a "dont fuck up I wont give you shit" admin. Basically, if I dont get complaints about the cops, who are literally Andy and Barney and a grown Opie, they can do what they need to do. Snow removal? I contract a local farmer to do the 9 town mail roads and the 15 side roads. That is his winter income. We are small enough that, that is it. Roads are upkept by county not us.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2021
    buffyfan, Sep 22, 2021
    #8
  9. neon zone

    neon zone Trusted Member

    Would you be within your right if you restricted vaccinated people from entering your bar?
     
    neon zone, Sep 26, 2021
    #9
  10. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Legally speaking? Yes. I really would. I would have to likely defend that in court. But yes. And if you mean "unvaccinated" not "Vaccinated"? Still yes. But I dont. Why? The town population is like 94.5% VOLUNTARILY Vaccinated.

    The employment is more based on at will employment though. The only people with Contracts are the Law Partners at the firm. The only Contracts at the Bars are My Oldest Daughter, her wife Taylor, and my MIL and FIL who "oversee" those operations for all us lawyers.
     
    buffyfan, Sep 27, 2021
    #10
  11. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

     
    Neophyte, Sep 28, 2021
    #11
  12. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

     
    Neophyte, Sep 28, 2021
    #12
  13. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

     
    Neophyte, Sep 30, 2021
    #13
  14. neon zone

    neon zone Trusted Member

    Coercion and bribery is not voluntary
     
    neon zone, Oct 3, 2021
    #14
    EggHead, TriadSibling and pussycat like this.
  15. MilaHot

    MilaHot Account Deleted

    If a woman gets pregnant after a rape.. you'd prefer her to keep the baby? The unborn is not yet born, its not 'conscious' yet, so its not a murder.
     
    MilaHot, Oct 4, 2021
    #15
    Incs likes this.
  16. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    I live in a town with like 200 people. The other 5.5% are under XX......

    They all got it on their own.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2021
    buffyfan, Oct 4, 2021
    #16
  17. Dane

    Dane Account Deleted

    Yes I would prefer her to allow the baby to live.
    Look at what you posted, even you called the pregnancy result a a "baby".

    Have you seen the movie Rob Roy?

    His wife was raped by a British Naval Officer.
    When his wife revealed her pregnancy to him, his reply was, "It's not the baby's fault".
    A righteous man indeed!

    Watch "The Silent Scream" and I'm sure you'll change your mind over whether the unborn is 'conscious' or not
     
    Dane, Oct 5, 2021
    #17
    EggHead likes this.
  18. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    If carried to term? It literally is. I would even say after "Viability" it is. But at 4, 6, 8 weeks? It really is simply a lifeform akin to cancer cells. If removed before X weeks? It can not survive and develop. If taken out before eyes, ears, nose and mouth develop? It cant see hear or breathe. There is a point, and I call it medical viability, that it is not YET a Baby.

    Lets let the medical people, not the Clergy and Philosophers, say when that is.

    In the end? Texas law, if they dont throw out a suit that I heard about will be in trouble. Doctor in LONDON (Has a valid US license) is supposedly being sued for telemedicine prescribing the abortion pill to those in TX after 6 weeks. If I remember the facts I read? The Doctor sends it a pharmacy in another state and they pick it up there. But since "TX RESIDENT" someone under the law is supposedly trying to sue. Now if she can be SUED under this law? They admitted their law applies to people in all 50 states and other nations when it comes to a person who resides in TX. That is a flaw. They are basically telling doctors in NY, CA, MI, PA, NJ etc that when it comes to people who's home in in TX? They are subject to TX LAW in "not Texas". Where they are NOT LICENSED and have no legal obligation to take TX law into consideration. If that suit makes it through district and appeals and maybe the USSC? That means they said states can pass laws that bind other NATIONS to obey. Nations where that is not the law.
     
    buffyfan, Oct 5, 2021
    #18
    Incs likes this.
  19. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    The same can be said of politicians, feminists, and activists.
     
    Neophyte, Oct 5, 2021
    #19
    Dane likes this.
  20. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Agreed. Lets let experts in the field define when it it can survive without the womb. Not Priests, nor Feminists.
     
    buffyfan, Oct 5, 2021
    #20
Page 1 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.