Have Democrats abandoned the 'my body, my choice' argument?

No, don't go over-dramatic again with the pixie dust analogy. Obviously what they mean is that OSHA has the ability to regulate the workplace, an ability that they haven't fully exercised yet especially on the matter of vaccines, but do seem very much willing to do so, since it's been said that they are drawing the regulations as we speak. My guess is, that's what was meant when they talked about untapped powers, obviously. Something you've acknowledged yourself, that OSHA never did that and never addressed vaccines; thus, untapped power.

Interesting, you never addressed the point that you WERE skipping over OSHA, that my sources DID quote OSHA when you pretended they didn't, and you falsely accused me of saying falsehoods, when you were the one who did so.

As for the merit of the matter, I'm out of my element, like I said many times. I hold no legal expertise whatsoever. I do not know if this mandate will hold or won't. Some legal scholars believe that it will, and I quoted them. You obviously disagree. Some other scholars disagree too. My opinion on this is just a guess. My guess is that it will hold. Obviously I may be wrong. But it is far from settled as you seem to believe. Like I said many times, the courts will look into it. Until they do, I'll reserve judgment.

Yes, I'm a peer reviewer, but strictly on medical matters. Legal peer review? No clue. Still, I don't deserve the jab "you have made great noise." My posts are not noise. They are very well reasoned, something you've acknowledged yourself. Just like I don't deserve the jab about being "so hot" on the LA Times (also "hot and bothered"). YOU challenged me to present links to opinions issued by scholars on points of the law. I did a simple Google search, and found those four links, for you. I didn't pick the link out of any special predilection for the LA Times. It was simply one of the first links that popped up when I searched, and when I read it, it seemed relevant so I quoted it. If YOU have something against the LA Times (you call them clowns so I suppose you do), do know that these 4 links were just 4 among many. I'm not about to overwhelm you and readers here with 30 links. So I posted 4. The LA Times happened to be among them. You don't like it? Do your own damn Google search. There are many other sources saying similar things.

These two jabs, I'll discount on grounds that when people start the personal attacks, it means that they are running short of valid arguments. I came to expect more from you than personal attacks, so, that's disappointing.

I don't think I'll be further responding about this. There is no point. You think it's a state-only power, you think the Biden team are out of their mind, and you think that this will never be upheld by the courts. I think it's very possible that the courts will side with Biden because of the use of funding and workplace laws, which are federal powers. We shall see. Until there is solid court review, there isn't much point in speculating, frankly.

So, I invite you to drop this subtopic now, for the sake of "we agree to disagree." Cheers.

 

Fake News, but thanks for confirming this hideous paternalism that assumes that everyone that doesn't promptly jump on the "let's jab everyone!" bandwagon is suddenly "responsible" for the free choices of others. And some folks on the Left wonder why everyone is sick and fed up with them? Fascinating.

My Body, My Choice:

COVID MAKES FOR STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: When It Comes to Vaccine Mandates, Black Lives Matter Agrees with… Tucker Carlson?!?

That one phrase sums up Americanism!

But "mind your own damn business!" is anathema to the vaccine nazis.

We'll leave it to the rich privileged white leftwing Gentry to explain to the POC of that they need a white savior "to do their thinking for them."

You want freedom and liberty? Don't vote for the Karens! Vote for someone who supports YOUR right to make your OWN decisions.

Oh dear what a pickle the vaxx nazis find themselves in. Kendi and the radical school teachers on the Left assure us that every instance of Blacks being disadvantaged is due to White Supremacy. The Vaxx Mandate is excluding Blacks from restaurants just like Jim Crow did, ergo, Vaxx Mandates are Jim Crow III.

 

Fake news, why? Are you disputing that the person's kids did say so? What's fake about it? And they were the ones who said it, not me. And I'm not a leftist. What you call a "bandwagon", I call a safe and effective medical/epidemiological intervention to control a deadly disease that is not only killing and maiming Americans (now at a total that is even bigger than the Spanish Flu, making of it the deadliest outbreak of an infectious disease in the ENTIRE history of this country), but is also killing the economy (and yes, it's the virus that kills the economy; not the measures proposed to contain it).

I don't have the faintest idea why you're directing this part of your answer to me. I have nothing to do with the Left or with BLM. But of course you're fascinated by anybody who says anything against the vaccines. Why am I not surprised?

 

Fake News. Tucker Carlson is not against vaccines. Perhaps you are incapable of seeing the obvious distinction between opposition to vaccines and opposition to vaccine mandates? Everyone has their strengths and their limitations, so don't feel bad about your inability to recognize this glaring distinction.

As the old saying goes: "Don't get mad at your perfectly good horse because they can't climb a tree." Perhaps asking you to be able to see this obvious distinction rather than slandering him as complicit in murder is just asking more of you than you are capable of, while failing to appreciate what you are good at, and I have not desire to do that, any more than I would complain about a perfectly good plow horse that can't climb a tree.

 

Vaccination protects other persons.

That is the difference.

Our government has HUGE numbers of laws that protect persons.

You don't get to "think" about those laws - you get to follow them.

 

I was talking about BLM when I said you're fascinated by anybody who says anything about the vaccines. You'd have known that, if you had paid attention to how I divided my post. The first quote was about Carlson and the dead man's kids. The second one was about BLM.
It's the kids of the man who died who spoke about Tucker Carlson, not me. And I said, why in the hell are you talking bout BLM to me??? But I'm not surprised that while being yourself against BLM, you're fascinated that they spoke against this... LOL
You know what? I gave you a lot of attention. I'm sick and tired of your condescending tone. Do you actually think that someone who keeps telling you that I'm against a vaccine mandate (but I think it will be upheld, which is a distinction YOU failed to grasp, putting words in my mouth and saying I wanted a mandate), and you also must know that I'm for the vaccines themselves, doesn't understand the difference between being opposed to vaccines and being opposed to mandates? So I have limitations... yeah right.
So, I think you've overstayed your welcome with me. While berating me for using "lay person" as being condescending, you're incredibly condescending to me, and you appeal to personal attacks all the time. You're disingenuous and you lie (like when you lied that my source didn't talk about OSHA).
At this time I'm choosing to stop reading you and responding to you. Have a nice life.
PS - By the way, Tucker Carlson fanboy... he's a liar. A big fat liar. And you're falling for it. That's how he gets his money: praying upon people like you.
Over and out.

 

Fake News. I'm interested when something interesting is available.

Repeating paternalistic claims that Carlson is anti-vax is untrue, and responsible for someone elses free choice isn't particularly brilliant. I may have to reassess my evaluation of your IQ.

Fake News. I'm against their positions that are wrong. They are right to take on the Vaxx Nazis.

What's this? The 7th grade?

I think you were going for "preying" not "praying".

 

Fake News.

American Fake News Press Pushes Ridiculous Comparisons Between Spanish Flu and COVID. "In the early days, with reports from China (which were probably deliberate disinformation) claiming a 4-5% death rate, such comparisons weren’t implausible. But we’ve known better for a very long time."

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/475242/

Comparing a single apple to 3.3 apples.

 

They are living humans. You are condoning the killing of living humans who have committed no crime nor have expressed any desire to die.

You are condoning me killing you for sake of convenience. That's completely messed up.

 

You're already in it. How are murder laws enforced?

Why not? (to both statements)

There's no need to "get around" it. Canada, Mexico, and other countries all have their own laws. The States of America have no say in what those laws are. The States of America only control what goes on in the States of America.

People wouldn't even need to travel out of the country though. They could simply travel into a different State that allows it and have it done there. They might even get it done in a "black market" sort of way within a State that bans it. There is no way to stop free will. However, having such a law allows for structured punishment for violating it.

There's no need to "get around" it. There is no way to stop free will. However, having such a law allows for structured punishment for violating it.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Well, duh, first you need a body or a missing PERSON......

Now, you could look up the fetus's SSN but they don't have one because they aren't persons.

You have NO body, NO missing person.

NO person has died.

If one reports a murder one needs A. A body. B. a missing person.

WHERE IS IT?

And you intend to respond to the post of mine you quoted when?? ( and leave off the flamebait?)

 

I gave a direct response to it.

 

Abortion laws, unlike murder laws, cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society. I have given you the benefit of being right and having unlimited resources and you were not able to address the simple challenges I presented. Abortion laws failed long before the internet and abortion drugs. The "structured punishment" would only affect the poor and the only ones you could catch are those dying of infection because they were afraid to seek competent medical care.

The only possible outcome is driving abortion underground and concealing the true number of abortions, That is no different than ignoring the issue altogether.

Those with a genuine concern for human life are not waiting for the government to take care of it. There are thousands of children that will never see the inside of a permanent, loving home.

 

Yes, it is incredible how the fiercest opponents of abortion only care for this potential human life while it is in the womb. Once that human life is born and becomes a person, God forbid that we might want to extend Medicaid and help that child with pediatric care and preventive care! Oh no, their representatives will vote against expanding Medicaid in their state, and they will applaud! And food stamps to help feed that child? The horror! They will say, this is just for lazy people and moochers! The poor are poor, they say, because they are lazy. So that child grows up disadvantaged, and since poverty increases criminality, the now adult then commits a crime. Whoa! Death penalty for him, they will say! It's all so hypocritical!

I'm Catholic and so is my wife. I'm personally against abortion. If my wife got pregnant at a time when we were not planning to have a child, we would have never considered abortion; she would have taken the pregnancy to term and we would have raised the child with all our love, planned or not. This situation has never happened to us: both our children were planned, and we are savvy enough with contraception that she never got any unplanned pregnancy. Also, in my dating days before I met my wife, I never impregnated anybody (that I know). I wouldn't like it if my daughter decided to have an abortion. However I wouldn't try to stop her either. Again, fortunately, as far as I know, she never had to face such choice, and when as a teenager she became sexually active, we provided for good gynecological care for her, so that she could get efficient contraception.

I'm also professionally against abortion (except of course in case of medical necessity to save the mother's life). As a medical doctor, my oath and duty are to protect and preserve life, including potential life (as in, we try to keep a fetus viable and try to push it to term, when the mother has a difficult and high-risk pregnancy). I did not choose to go into OB-GYN so my involvement with pregnancies and deliveries only happened during my medical school rotations. I delivered a few babies then; that was cool. Once I graduated, I never had to make any of these decisions (and while I was a student, the decisions were made by the attendings, not by me). If I were invited to assist in any way in an abortion, I'd have declined. Fortunately I was never put in that situation.

However, despite being personally and professionally against abortion, I try not to judge others, and I don't think my beliefs should be imposed upon others. Whether or not the law of the land authorizes abortion, I think it's an issue for the legislators and the courts. It being currently legal, the decision then belongs to the women (and hopefully also to their partners when they are involved), and their doctors. I stay out of it. I don't judge, and I don't even go out of my way to vote for candidates who seek to forbid abortion. I don't try to curb other people's personal and religious decisions (or lack thereof) to conform with mine.

It's the same thing regarding gay marriage. I am decisively heterosexual and I can barely comprehend why a hairy dude would want to be with another hairy dude, when women are so silky, so beautiful, and so delicious. But hey, who am I to judge? Whatever rocks their boat. I have nothing against it, and I think they are perfectly entitled to enjoying the benefits and protections that marriage law affords to heterosexual couples, under the principle of equal treatment under the law. So my religion harbors some beliefs that clash with homosexuality; I don't feel concerned at all. I think that in this, my religion is obsolete, as the dogmas and precepts were drawn 2,000+ years ago when society wasn't as open. Progressively, even the Catholic Church has been opening more and more to homosexuals. I wish the Church would just stay completely out of the controversy. If one day a Pope decides to change the rules and allow Catholic priests to celebrate gay marriage (and/or to get married themselves for that matter), I wouldn't oppose it. My own sexuality and my own morals are not threatened at all by gay people enjoying some rights, and I don't think it is my place to try to curb any of their rights.

Sorry for the off-topic last paragraph.

 

lol, tucker. Some use it, some don't. I don't bother because it's moot when you consider the fact that the early mindless fetus isn't a person anyway. It might become relevant if late-term abortions were common for elective purposes.

The issue with vaccines is that not doing it puts other people at greater risk to get infected by covid. If it really were just about that individual person's health, then it would be their body and their choice unambiguously. Like prophylactic salpingectomy for women at high risk of hereditary cancer or who are done reproducing and surgery is being done there for another reason. Cancer isn't contagious, so it really would be a better example of their body/their choice if they want the salpingectomy compared to getting vaccinated.

 

Well, first there is a murder...

So, Texas hires vigilantes to do their dirty work!

And, that includes women attempting to go out of state.

Besides, Texas law is aimed at women who have little means. Anyone with money can go out of state or have a European vacation.

Otherwise, the woman is probably good and solidly F'ed. But, when did Texas care about women who don't have wealth???

 

No , you went off on :

gfm7175 said: ↑
They are living humans. You are condoning the killing of living humans who have committed no crime nor have expressed any desire to die.

You are condoning me killing you for sake of convenience. That's completely messed up."""""

I posted:
""first you need a body or a missing PERSON......""

No response.



""Now, you could look up the fetus's SSN but they don't have one because they aren't persons.""
No response


""You have NO body, NO missing person.""

NO response.

""""NO person has died.

If one reports a murder one needs A. A body. B. a missing person.

WHERE IS IT?""""

NO response.

 

Looks like a new thread title should be "Have Republicans abandoned their thread when facts are presented"

 

Why not? They can be enforced as current murder laws are enforced.

I addressed everything you presented.

It would affect everyone if enforced upon everyone.

Yes, abortion would be driven underground. That's where many Satanic things currently are.

Not everybody is capable of adopting children.

The root cause of these issues is people turning their backs to the Holy Bible, choosing to have sex outside of marriage solely for pleasure purposes rather than only having sex after marriage for procreation purposes (as God intended for it to be).

There are MANY problems in this world that would largely go away if people were to follow the ways of Jesus Christ rather than the ways of Satan...

 

This thread is about Democrat hypocrisy in screaming "my body my choice" when it comes to abortion (even though that doesn't make any logical sense) yet pushing mandated mask wearing and vaccination policies (in complete disregard of the "my body my choice" chant).

So, have you abandoned the "my body my choice" position?

 

I respect your beliefs, but on this topic, you have only replied with diversions. Your challenge will be addressing medical tourism and abortion drugs.

I am giving you the benefit of being right and having unlimited resources.

Abortion laws cannot be enforced and have no benefit to society. Please prove me wrong.

 

So you want abortion banned to punish women who have sex outside of marriage?

(I already know the true answer )

 

RQAA (repetitive question already addressed)

I've asked you to explain why they can't be enforced as murder laws are enforced...

 

So you support the choice to kill a living human who has committed no crime nor has expressed any desire to die? Your justification for this is "convenience"?

 

Question was dodged with your murder diversion. There is no such thing as murder tourism. Medical tourism is flourishing today and those wanting an abortion can take a short trip. How do you propose we stop that?