When comparing covid inoculation to abortion: one is forcing/coercing an unwanted medical procedure. The other is denying access to a wanted medical procedure.
When comparing covid inoculation to abortion: one is forcing/coercing an unwanted medical procedure. The other is denying access to a wanted medical procedure.
Which is why those who are generally opposed to abortion must grapple with the ethical reality that, opinions of abortion aside, principles of bodily autonomy generally accrue in favor of permitting abortion just as they do in favor of rejecting COVID-19 inoculations. To overcome that one must be able to articulate an ethically coherent superseding principle.
Jacobson presents the logic that a community's interests in protecting against a dangerous and highly contagious disease (in that case, smallpox), was one such superseding principle. As regards abortion, I personally would argue that the personhood of the unborn child is also a superseding principle.
However, if such superseding principles do not withstand close inspection--and I do not believe the Jacobson position of protection against a dangerous and highly contagious disease can apply to COVID-19, as the COVID-19 is arguably neither dangerous nor as contagious as smallpox has been recorded as being--then the bodily autonomy arguments must prevail.
On the subject of abortion, for me itтАЩs a question of are we a society that will sanction murder because I have no doubt that an unborn baby is a human being. Not that that is necessarily evil, but letтАЩs at least admit to it. That said, I am neutral on the subject. ItтАЩs far too nuanced and impossible of a situation for me to resolve.
Indeed, the arguments against the inoculations even being allowed out on the market greatly exceed what can be contained in a single Substack!
However, given that the FDA is pushing forward with an even more dangerous incarnation of these insane inoculations, as they are abandoning clinical trials for the next round of boosters, the capacity of people to legally "just say no" to them is becoming increasingly important--and we are already at a stage where it can be a matter of life or death.
We need not resolve every bodily autonomy issue to conclude--and to advocate--that people are well within their inalienable civil rights to refuse these shots regardless of what the FDA and CDC claim about them.
What I hope to persuade everyone is that the case law within the US courts contains multiple precedents to support the right of people to decline the inoculations, and I hope everyone finds it within themselves to stand up for their inalienable civil rights, particularly in this regard.
Contrary to what the politicians and the experts want people to think, we are not arguing the matter de novo. This debate predates us all.
When comparing covid inoculation to abortion: one is forcing/coercing an unwanted medical procedure. The other is denying access to a wanted medical procedure.
That is a fair assessment.
Which is why those who are generally opposed to abortion must grapple with the ethical reality that, opinions of abortion aside, principles of bodily autonomy generally accrue in favor of permitting abortion just as they do in favor of rejecting COVID-19 inoculations. To overcome that one must be able to articulate an ethically coherent superseding principle.
Jacobson presents the logic that a community's interests in protecting against a dangerous and highly contagious disease (in that case, smallpox), was one such superseding principle. As regards abortion, I personally would argue that the personhood of the unborn child is also a superseding principle.
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/personhood-abortions-essential-question
However, if such superseding principles do not withstand close inspection--and I do not believe the Jacobson position of protection against a dangerous and highly contagious disease can apply to COVID-19, as the COVID-19 is arguably neither dangerous nor as contagious as smallpox has been recorded as being--then the bodily autonomy arguments must prevail.
Nor is the covid inoculation safe and effective
On the subject of abortion, for me itтАЩs a question of are we a society that will sanction murder because I have no doubt that an unborn baby is a human being. Not that that is necessarily evil, but letтАЩs at least admit to it. That said, I am neutral on the subject. ItтАЩs far too nuanced and impossible of a situation for me to resolve.
Indeed, the arguments against the inoculations even being allowed out on the market greatly exceed what can be contained in a single Substack!
However, given that the FDA is pushing forward with an even more dangerous incarnation of these insane inoculations, as they are abandoning clinical trials for the next round of boosters, the capacity of people to legally "just say no" to them is becoming increasingly important--and we are already at a stage where it can be a matter of life or death.
https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/the-end-of-covid-19-vaccine-safety
We need not resolve every bodily autonomy issue to conclude--and to advocate--that people are well within their inalienable civil rights to refuse these shots regardless of what the FDA and CDC claim about them.
What I hope to persuade everyone is that the case law within the US courts contains multiple precedents to support the right of people to decline the inoculations, and I hope everyone finds it within themselves to stand up for their inalienable civil rights, particularly in this regard.
Contrary to what the politicians and the experts want people to think, we are not arguing the matter de novo. This debate predates us all.