What happened to the hard-fought freedom's right to the privacy of our body?

Author: 949havoc

Posts

Total: 55
Topic's author
#1
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
Is freedom's right to the privacy of our body limited just to women and for specifically the right to an abortion, and, otherwise, the State has that freedom to dictate, such as relative to Covid vaccines? Joe Biden has, as of 9/9, issued his mandate that distances us from this elusive right to our privacy.

Which is it, a restricted right, which is otherwise known as a privilege, and not a right, or does it maintain its universal application, and Biden has committed another unconstitutional act? It's either, or; there's no middle ground.

Progs, you are warned to be consistent, here. Usually, you're not, so I will not be surprised by detractors.
#2
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
Liberals value collective good over individual good, even though things like  collectivism have been proven to be evil if you look at Hitler or mao or pol pot. 

They just don't value freedom. If they stomp on your freedom for a perceived short term greater good, they view it as ethical.

They neither care about individualism nor care about studying and projecting what the 75 year affects of a policy will be. 
#3
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
What happened to the hard-fought freedom's right [sic] to the privacy of our body?
  • The State of Texas put a $10,000 bounty on its head.


#4
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
It is a slippery slope. 

Vaccines have been forced on children for decades,and few peopel have ever protested this. But now it's "grown ups" who are being coerced, if not forced. So. Im not sure. I would get my kids vaxed for polio etc. without their concent. Is this right? I think it is. Is it ok to coerce/force adults if it is for the "good of society"? Maybe not. But maybe yes. I don't know,and Ive thought about it quite a bit.
#5
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Wylted
Liberals value collective good over individual good, even though things like  collectivism have been proven to be evil if you look at Hitler or mao or pol pot. 

They just don't value freedom. If they stomp on your freedom for a perceived short term greater good, they view it as ethical.

They neither care about individualism nor care about studying and projecting what the 75 year affects of a policy will be.  
I don’t know man, Nazism and Maoism is pretty conservative.  This is 2021.
But I’m glad you’re thinking about the future. That’s pretty progressive of you. 

Should we reconsider our thoughts?

#6
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
Which is it, a restricted right, which is otherwise known as a privilege, and not a right, or does it maintain its universal application, and Biden has committed another unconstitutional act? It's either, or; there's no middle ground.
All rights are necessarily restricted because absolute rights for absolutely everyone is absolutely impossible. You have asked a loaded question.

Also, there is a difference between making personal decision and a societal decision. The first is a right (bodily autonomy) - the second ...not so much.
Topic's author
#7
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
All rights are necessarily restricted because absolute rights for absolutely everyone is absolutely impossible. You have asked a loaded question.
Loaded? Nope, because you ignore that rights, which are absolute, are, nevertheless, bound to yield to consequences, but only when our abuse of those rights abuse one another by our insistence of exercising individual rights. We cause the limitations on rights ourselves, but they, themselves, are not limited so long as we choose to think and act correctly. It is one reason why governments do not and cannot create rights; they merely offer rights' availability to their citizens, or take them away by their self-centered greed of power.

Also, there is a difference between making personal decision and a societal decision. The first is a right (bodily autonomy) - the second ...not so much.
No, that misunderstands the nature of rights. It is easier to understand rights as they are used individually, but their use by society merely implies that a collection of individuals have decided to agree to their use and do not abuse others' rights in order to express their own. A person living a hermetic life can use rights to the fullest extent without worry that their rights have trampled another's.
#8
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
You've basically agreed rights are limited while trying to avoid that language, but no matter what you call it, rights are limited so that everyone can have them. 

If someone is a hermit - their rights are irrelevant because there is no one they need to be protected from. But - we're not talking about hermits, we are talking about members of a society. There is no right to endanger others in the name of personal freedom. That represents a  misunderstanding of the entire notion of rights. Rights are a shield ...and vaccines, masks, seatbelts, airbags, allowing black people into hospitals (all things mandated by the government) aren't harming you, but they are protecting all of us.
#9
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
If pregnancy had the heath, financial and social impacts of two doses of vaccine: progressives would all be pro life.

If vaccines had the health, financial and social impacts of pregnancy, progressives would all be anti-vaccine mandate.


Rights are a balancing act; just because we come down one way in a low probability harm vs low impact balancing; does not make it inconsistent for us to come down the other way in a definite harm vs very high impact balancing


Topic's author
#10
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, I did not agree rights are limited; not inherently. If something you think is a right is limited by its existence, that is not a right, that's a privilege, WE limit rights by our own thoughts and actions, limitations imposed on ourselves by ourselves and toward others, as I previously said.
Topic's author
#11
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Ramshutu
I agree, mostly, with you. However, where I diverge is in the balancing act suggestion. I think rights are immutable. We do the balancing act.
#12
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@949havoc
When two people’s rights conflict with each other; one or other of those rights are mutable.
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Wylted
even though things like  collectivism have been proven to be evil if you look at Hitler or mao or pol pot. 
Firstly, why are you pooling Hitler in with the Communists when it comes to individualism vs collectivism? Hitler was so extremely individualistic that he thought his own ethnicity should eliminate another and any who were vulnerable should be eliminated unless they serve the greedy who thrived in his Capitalist society (as long as the greedy didn't stand in his way and were of an ethnicity he held as supreme).

Mao and Pol Pot were extremely corrupt and used 'collectivism' to disguise their own individualist empire under the mask of equality, just like every single Communist dictator has and does. The real way to do 'collectivism' is Social Democracy.
#14
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
No, I did not agree rights are limited; not inherently. If something you think is a right is limited by its existence, that is not a right, that's a privilege, WE limit rights by our own thoughts and actions, limitations imposed on ourselves by ourselves and toward others, as I previously said.
I'm saying "rights are limited". You're saying "we limit rights". I'm not seeing where the disagreement lies. Both statements equate to rights being limited.
Topic's author
#15
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@janesix
It is a slippery slope. 
Yes, it is, but, relative to your children, depending on their age, leaving the decision to vax up to them risks their making decisions based on ignorance of all the factors involved is not a wise course.
Topic's author
#16
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
The difference is that you maintain that the natural state of rights is that they are limited. I'm saying the limitation is because of us. That they become limited is a given. I'm saying we are the cause, not that rights are inherently limited.
#17
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
I said I was unsure about adults, not kids.
#18
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
The difference is that you maintain that the natural state of rights is that they are limited. I'm saying the limitation is because of us. That they become limited is a given. I'm saying we are the cause, not that rights are inherently limited.

I maintain nothing of the sort. Rights don't exist in the wild. They are a human conception and any limitations necessarily come from humans.

I maintain the notion of rights doesn't work in any absolute sense. Rights must be limited if they are to perform the function we imagine.
#19
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@949havoc
i always thought it was stupid when conservatives point to prochoice values to downgrade vaccine mandates, and i thought it was stupid when liberals point to prolife values to upgrade vaccine mandates. they're arguing against their own stance to force someone into another stance.... if you're conservative to say people dont have a right to mandate vaccines, means they have a right to terminate pregnancies, by their own logic. the most consistent view, is women do not have absolute right to kill her baby, but people dont have absolute right to infect others. it's pretty simple what's the most decent and fair stance in all this. 
Topic's author
#20
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
the notion of rights doesn't work in any absolute sense.
If you maintain that nothing exists in an absolute, such as life, itself [which I maintain does not end at death - and at a cellular level, there is no chemical, biological, or philosophical purpose to explain why cells die], then I understand your notion of limited rights. But, what if you're wrong, that there are absolutes. I believe there are, and rights are, then, absolute, as well? You're not the only skeptic; I just reside on the other side of skepticism. I believe in the eternal. How's that for absolute?
Topic's author
#21
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@n8nrgmi
I agree there is a reasonable middle ground, and that middle ground to me is that all deserve a choice that satisfies their individual needs, and their willingness to accept the consequences of their choices, whatever they are. But that doesn't mean I cannot have my opinion about any of those choices, nor you.
#22
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@949havoc
Is freedom's right to the privacy of our body limited just to women and for specifically the right to an abortion
Do you agree that this right should exist?
Topic's author
#23
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes, and not just for  women. However, the specific right argued by Roe v. Wade was not for a general right of privacy to women, but, exclusively, relative to pregnancy, maintaining that a fetus is part of a woman's body, when it is not. It is contained by the woman's body, but so is a ping pong ball held in a fist. Is the ball part of the woman's body? No. Neither is the fetus.
#24
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@949havoc
But, what if you're wrong, that there are absolutes. I believe there are, and rights are, then, absolute, as well?

What you believe about rights is logically impossible. Our rights don't exist in a vacuum- they bump up against other people's rights. Absolute rights wouldn't 'bump' - they would crash through. It is simply not possible for everyone to have absolute rights.

You're not the only skeptic; I just reside on the other side of skepticism. I believe in the eternal. How's that for absolute?
I don't think that word [skepticism] means what you think it means. Skepticism =/= accepting claims uncritically. 

This is no longer related to the OP, but I'm not opposed to having this conversation in an appropriately labeled thread.
#25
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,166
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Reece101
"Nazism and Maoism is pretty conservative." Please explain how you came to that belief? 
#26
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
I was stooping to Wylted’s level of reasoning, that’s why asked if we should reconsider our thoughts. But would you like me to continue? 
#27
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,166
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
 If you don't believe Nazism and Maoism are American Conservative ideals, then no. No need.
#28
drlebronski
drlebronski's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 993
3
5
9
drlebronski's avatar
drlebronski
3
5
9
-->
@sadolite
@Reece101
Nazism:
Not even close to communism, Nazi, germany was extremely market based, individualistic and capitalistic
as rm pointed out they were nowhere near collectivist and thought only their ethnic group is pure and whatnot.
Hitler disguised himself as a socialist by being a "national socialist" in order to get public opinion.

Maoism:
Moaist china was extremely conservative and even arrested homosexuals and put them in "re-education".


"China has been shifting away from an investment-driven growth model to one led by private consumption"

#29
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@drlebronski
No such thing as workable communism.

Just a philosophers pipe dream.

All systems are hierarchical and maintained by varying levels of force, based upon varying ideologies.
#30
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@sadolite
 If you don't believe Nazism and Maoism are American Conservative ideals, then no. No need.
“American Conservative ideals” come down to which Kool-Aid tastes best.