If the vaccine protects the vaccinated, you'd figure pro lifers would want as many people to get vaccinated to save the most amount of lives. But the ones promoting vaccines are primarily pro choicers.
or by keeping your clothes on when you have sex.
Telling people to never leave their house so they don't accidentally kill someone in a car crash or spread COVID is doing all you can do.Why would you suggest that it is fine to subject others to risk in some circumstances but not others? Why do you draw an arbitrary line at vaccines? Is it fine to impose risks on the individuals getting vaccinated to maybe save other people?
Pro-Choice people very often want to limit your choice of health insurance, guns/all self-defense tools, want to limit what you can choose to say, and many other things.
or by keeping your clothes on when you have sex.Lmfao, what?
I would encourage vaccinations but not encourage people to stay at home to protect others because the economy would fail if you make everyone stay at home, whereas the economy wouldn't fail if everyone got vaccinated. Fortunately, nobody believes life is truly priceless, otherwise they would do whatever it takes to save one life. A little bit of risk acceptable if the economy needs the risk. I wouldn't necessarily kill 100 million Americans to bring the economy back, but 100 seems like a fair price to pay.
This is also true; both parties suck horse penis.
I fail to see the issue with dry fucking (having consensual sex with clothes on) if it's okay to wet fuck. Now you don't have to worry about getting the girl pregnant, yet you can still feel her body through her clothes.
But why do you think that "pro-life" generally don't push vaccination? Do they want people to die?
This is also true; both parties suck horse penis.They do much better than the Libertarian party. Republicans and Democrats must suck less horse penis than Libertarians.
That doesn't work, never do that lol
Why not? I've seen it done before.
How so? Libetarians are mostly principled. There are a few areas where in my opinion they aren't, such as with nuclear power and the death penalty, but for the most part they are the principled ones.
My guess is pro lifers are more hesitant to take the vaccine to "own the libs" since we live in very partisan times where if the democrats support something, the GOP automatically opposes it and vice versa.
That is a consequence of the ban, yes, but that is not what the ban itself is or the ethics/values behind the ban. To try and frame it in this way is, in a way, a strawman of the pro-life position.
Being "principled" is often quite foolish. You're enslaving yourself to some ideology. Pragmatism is much better. If a policy would be very beneficial, I don't care if Adam Smith says the invisible hand doesn't like that.
No bro, they just don't trust it because it was developed very quickly, the companies can't be sued for vaccine-related issues, and it is only under emergency use authorization.
The covid vaccine took a little under a year to develop, it took quite some time to make. The companies making the vaccines have almost never had allergic reactions to the vaccine and far more have died of covid than the number that have died from the vaccine.
And death isn't the only concern. Some people are getting heart damage. For young, healthy people, it isn't saving anyone else (because vaccinated people spread it), and their death rate is tiny, assuming they get COVID in the first place.
And it taking "less than a year" to develop is exactly my point. Most take multiple years, and sometimes even decades to develop and gain approval for use on people. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-long-it-took-to-develop-other-vaccines-in-history-2020-7Also, this is, to my knowledge, the first mRNA vaccine ever approved for use on people.
The reason why vaccines take so long is because people are worried about long term side effects. However, I don't think there is any evidence that a mere vaccination produces a long term negative side effect. I might be wrong here, but I don't think people have to worry about long term side effects from the covid vaccine.
Young healthy people often avoid symptoms and missed school days...
Pro-Life people advocate for people who cannot speak for themselves. That doesn't mean they should pressure grown adults into making their own health decisions that only affect them.
First, there are no unborn "people"
That is not happening, because, once again pro-lifers demonstrate life is not their focus.
Comparing abortion to a real life person dying a horrible painful death is stupid.
How do you define people?Is a premature baby born at 7.5 months more of a person than a fetus that is near 9 months of development?
The pro-life position tends to wish to protect the life of the unborn by upholding the responsibility of the mother. It is the desire to protect one's life but the responsibility aspect is considered when making this decision.
If you then try to talk about people's lives without considering the aspect of responsibility then it becomes easy to say that pro-life=pro-birth and not life, but that is due to ignoring a fundamental aspect in which the position is taken.
Birth is required for personhood legally
Assuming the personhood of the unborn (which is quite a large allowance considering) there is still no right to use the body of another without consent.
Birth is required for personhood legallyIsn't part of the debate over whether abortion should be legal this issue itself?
Assuming the personhood of the unborn (which is quite a large allowance considering) there is still no right to use the body of another without consent.I would disagree. Rights get limited by responsibilities and obligations all the time
If you want we can create a new thread to talk about the topic more in depth. Who knows, maybe it will convince me to stay pro-choice.
The only reason Christians care about the unborn is once a child is born they believe they're contaminated with original sin.
So somehow terminating a pregnancy is evil but letting people die some other ways just fine it's complete and utter hypocrisy.
Stopping someone from being born is not the same as killing them whether you think so or not.
Pro life folks do not advocate for people near as often as the moniker would suggest. First, there are no unborn "people", so the anti-abortion advocacy is for birth (certainly not life of people).
Secondly, @TheUnderdog is not wrong to suggest those who claim to be Pro-Life might be expected to advocate for vaccinations to save lives. That is not happening, because, once again pro-lifers demonstrate life is not their focus.
There really isn't any way to respond to that other than "you're wrong". There are "unborn people". Pro-Choice people attempt to rationalize their decision to have a more convenient life by saying they aren't killing "people". They, likely including you, use some arbitrary measure to say the "clump of cells" isn't a person such as pain or heartbeat or sentience or whatever else. There really is no consistent position other than if it is an innocent human (ie. won't kill the mother), its life matters.
But as I told him, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not labels that are meant to extend beyond the abortion issue.
Before you go crazy with that, personhood is irrelevant to my position. Person or not, there is no right to use the body of another without consent.
like cancer, terratomas, dolphins, etc.
Birth, childcare, healthcare, financial stress, poverty, crime, etc., are some of the natural consequences of disallowing abortion of unwanted pregnancies. Pro-life folks aren't known for considering anything after birth, though, and are generally loathe to support social programs. Its not a gotcha - it is a fair criticism pointing out the interest in seeing unwanted pregancies carried to term, but not the desire to prevent trajectory stealing potential it can inflict on the lives of everyone involved.
...and for the record, being pro-choice and understanding rights cannot be absolute (and restrictions are necessary) is not a contradictory position.
I believe @TheMorningStar is going to start a thread on abortion. Maybe we can move the discussion there rather than derailing this one with pure abortion talk.
Why is there no right to the use of the body of another?
Why would dolphins and cancer be people?
I can agree that the regular pro-life folks are also generally not in favor of government assistance for taking care of those kids. I'm not one of them.
