|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 9:28:54 GMT -5
I heard on NPR last night that in Texas more and more people are taking advantage of an exemption that allows parents to decline to have their children vaccinated prior to being admitted to the public schools, otherwise a requirement.
At first, I was annoyed because I don’t like it when people make decisions based on myth, ignorance, and ignore the science of things. Kids should be vaccinated, for their good and for everyone else’s, right?
But then, and I can’t say why, I began to think about vaccinations, and bodily autonomy, and… abortion. Bear with me….
I think I’m right in saying that people who are pro-choice (me included) ground their belief in the idea of bodily autonomy. A relatively simple, straightforward concept: whatever moral concerns anyone else has about fetus v. child, clump of cells v. human, a woman has the right to determine what happens to her body.
That being so, is it disingenuous for someone to be both pro-choice and want to require vaccinations for children, with no exemptions?
The only argument I can come up with to potentially over-ride this inconsistency is “the greater good.” A woman having an abortion doesn’t affect anyone else (not strictly true, but you know what I mean). Whereas a large-scale refusal to be vaccinated could potentially result in harm to others.
But I have problems with that position. First, it’s unlikely that if my son isn’t vaccinated he will either contract a deadly disease, and even unlikelier that he will pass it on. Second, I think there’s a good argument that neither me nor my son owe a duty of care to some theoretical, unknown, potential future-sufferer. If you believe so strongly in bodily autonomy that you are 100 percent pro-choice, then that remote likelihood of harm and lack of duty of care seem like weak arguments.
Looked at a different way, “the greater good” is a utilitarian argument. Which, if you support it, means you have to eventually do some line drawing. In other words, if you support mandatory vaccinations for the greater good, could you also support mandatory blood donation? Or mandatory organ donation after death? Heck, taken to the extreme, one could argue that one live, healthy human’s organs could save five or six people, so they should be harvested “for the greater good” before death!
Bottom line here, I feel like I’m missing something in all of this, and you are a wise and articulate group. Enlighten me.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2018 10:44:57 GMT -5
Well, I'm not pro-choice. Neither am I pro-life.
There are limits, imo. And abortion is a medical procedure; the decision of when and if to have one is something that can only be made by the person having the procedure (maybe a couple of exceptions), on advice from medical professionals. However, bodily autonomy shouldn't be extended to include murder, which is what I think is the proper classification for some late term abortions.
For vaccinations, public schools have rules designed to safeguard the students. Required immunizations for students are appropriate, in my view. This isn't a question of bodily autonomy, it's a question of following the rules in order to make use of a provided service.
|
|
|
Post by cray on Aug 15, 2018 10:51:23 GMT -5
no judgement here but sounds like you need help..... you're pro-life.
at least that's where they'd put you if you were on the debate team.
mark, interesting post. thanks.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2018 11:10:40 GMT -5
no judgement here but sounds like you need help..... you're pro-life. at least that's where they'd put you if you were on the debate team. You think? Again, I think an abortion is a medical procedure. Like any other medical procedure--particularly ones that are voluntary--is up to the patient and their doctor to determine if it's appropriate. It's not up to the State or to someone else (like, say, the father). How is that pro-life? But like with most everything else, there are limits. Here's the SC opinion for Gonzales v. Carhart from 2007: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZO.htmlFrom it: Sorry, but the above is something I just can't support. We have to better than that, don't we? Because there's an emotional toll here not just for the patient, but for the doctors and nurses involved, as well.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 11:18:11 GMT -5
For vaccinations, public schools have rules designed to safeguard the students. Required immunizations for students are appropriate, in my view. This isn't a question of bodily autonomy, it's a question of following the rules in order to make use of a provided service.
This isn't precise enough reasoning for me. You seem to be saying it's OK just because it's a rule, and I can't think you believe that. What if the school suddenly resorted to corporal punishment and said, "Hey, it's the new rule and it's for the safety and security of all students and faculty." Hopefully we're beyond that. (I can hear Don raging against that logic, that because some govt body says it's required, that makes it worthy... and I agree!)
And does this mean you wouldn't allow religious/moral exemptions? I assume not, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by cray on Aug 15, 2018 11:21:47 GMT -5
i'd say that as soon as you say that it's (also) up to the doctor to determine if it's appropriate they'd put you on the pro-life team.
*shrug*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 11:29:52 GMT -5
It's the greater good argument, yes, but I'll also go all libertarian on you.
By and large, I believe people should have a good deal of freedom, especially about their bodily autonomy--right up until the point where your liberty is impacting others. The abortion affects the woman (and yes, the fetus -- more on that in a second). The failure to vaccinate could potentially affect, even kill, a lot of other people who have no say and no way of avoiding the danger. (Not everyone can be vaccinated; that's why we need the herd immunity.) And yes, there's the fact I have little fucking patience with anti-vaxxers, since their position is completely fallacious.
I don't regard a fetus as a person. It's a potential person, but up until viability, it can't live without the mother's body. That being the case, I have to make a choice between a woman's bodily autonomy and the fetus, and I'll take the sentient, thinking being every time. Forcing her to undergo months of bodily changes followed by excruciating pain, paying the costs for all of that, and taking the risks of the health complications that can come with it against her will -- yeah, no.
I think abortion is sad as hell and I'd like to make it as rare as possible, but I think the way to do that is more sex education, easily available and affordable birth control, and social welfare programs that make it less financially catastrophic for a poor woman to bring a baby to term and take care of it.
And in fact, I've read that the measures I just mention seem to be considerably more effective in reducing abortions than outlawing it (which drives desperate women to get illegal abortions).
As far as I know, there is no alternative to vaccination to preventing a pack of dire diseases from affecting not only the vaccinated individuals, but also those who cannot get vaccinations. And those diseases can kill.
ETA:
I've used this example somewhere before--if it were somehow scientifically possible to give a comatose person an excellent chance of recovery, but it required forcing an unwilling parent or sibling to put on 40 pounds over the course of 9 months and then go through hours of excruciating pain with the possibility of permanent physical issues and even death, how many people would favor forcing people to undergo that ordeal to save the comatose person? Few, I imagine.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2018 11:37:53 GMT -5
i'd say that as soon as you say that it's (also) up to the doctor to determine if it's appropriate they'd put you on the pro-life team. *shrug* Well, I'm assuming the doctor in question is a good doctor, who is properly concerned for their patient's well being. Because if no doctor is willing to perform a given abortion on patient X because they think it's too risky, I don't think patient X should be able to get an abortion, simply because that is what they want.
|
|
|
Post by cray on Aug 15, 2018 11:41:55 GMT -5
i'd say that as soon as you say that it's (also) up to the doctor to determine if it's appropriate they'd put you on the pro-life team. *shrug* Well, I'm assuming the doctor in question is a good doctor, who is properly concerned for their patient's well being. Because if no doctor is willing to perform a given abortion on patient X because they think it's too risky, I don't think patient X should be able to get an abortion, simply because that is what they want. i get it. and i agree with you. but i'm sure you see where i'm going........on paper it looks and feels like the decision does not fully lie with the woman.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2018 11:48:46 GMT -5
This isn't precise enough reasoning for me. You seem to be saying it's OK just because it's a rule, and I can't think you believe that. What if the school suddenly resorted to corporal punishment and said, "Hey, it's the new rule and it's for the safety and security of all students and faculty." Hopefully we're beyond that. (I can hear Don raging against that logic, that because some govt body says it's required, that makes it worthy... and I agree!)
And does this mean you wouldn't allow religious/moral exemptions? I assume not, but maybe I'm wrong.
But I do think that, because it's a rule based what we know and what we can do, when it comes to communicable diseases and the like. It's not just some random rule pulled out of thin air; it's quite defensible, from a general welfare standpoint. At the end of the day, the role of the State is to protect the lives of its citizenry, no? And yes, I wouldn't allow exemptions to this kind of requirement. I understand the conundrum you've set up, but I just don't agree, because 1) bodily autonomy still has limits and 2) citizens should accept those requirements that exist to protect the general population. If we want to go hyperbolic here, I could argue that it would be okay for me to stand on a train track, even with a train coming, because it's my body, right? But aside from the suicide issue, surely you would agree that I shouldn't be allowed to endanger the lives of others, simply because it's my body.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 15, 2018 11:52:19 GMT -5
i get it. and i agree with you. but i'm sure you see where i'm going........on paper it looks and feels like the decision does not fully lie with the woman. Which I why I can't be pro-choice, right? And yet, since I think abortion is a perfectly valid decision, far more often than not, I can hardly be pro-life... That said, the issue of a "right" that requires the work of another is an important one, in my view, one that is often ignored.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 11:55:43 GMT -5
If we want to go hyperbolic here, I could argue that it would be okay for me to stand on a train track, even with a train coming, because it's my body, right? But aside from the suicide issue, surely you would agree that I shouldn't be allowed to endanger the lives of others, simply because it's my body.
I'm all for going hyperbolic, it's the way we lawyer test our arguments. That said, I think maybe your analogy isn't quite right, and here's why: by standing on the track you are taking an active role in putting others in danger. By living my life on my own terms (i.e., by refusing vaccinations), I am not taking an active role in endangering people. As I said before, I'm not sure I owe complete strangers a duty of care such that I should be required to allow needles to be stuck into my body against my wishes. Unless I am actively harming someone else, I should have autonomy over my body.
(I'm not convinced I agree with myself, but that's the argument, I think.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 11:59:41 GMT -5
Well, there's also the "what is it you're asking them to do that impacts their autonomy" thing vs the impact on others. With vaccination, we are talking a prick in the arm that takes 5 seconds, that is overwhelmingly likely to benefit you as well as the community and very unlikely to injure you.
If what you were asking was for them, e.g., to go through hours of excruciating pain solely for the benefit of others, that might be another discussion.
ETA:
Moreover, don't those anti-vaxxers have the option of homeschooling?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2018 12:08:16 GMT -5
We have all kinds of laws/rules etc. that limit our absolute autonomy when it impacts others.
E.g ., if someone is constantly blasting loud music, there are typically noise regulations I can invoke. Sure, it's their stereo and their apartment, but their right to blast music stops where my right to a reasonable amount of quiet enjoyment of my apartment begins. You can't just let your garbage pile up and attract vermin. You might not care but the community does. Etc.
ETA:
The garbage example might be comparable-- even though it is your property and your garbage, you have an obligation to take affirmative action to not let it accumulate. whether you care about the rats, roaches and stink or not, it impacts the neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 15, 2018 12:17:12 GMT -5
Well, there's also the "what is it you're asking them to do that impacts their autonomy" thing vs the impact on others. With vaccination, we are talking a prick in the arm that takes 5 seconds, that is overwhelmingly likely to benefit you as well as the community and very unlikely to injure you. If what you were asking was for them, e.g., to go through hours of excruciating pain solely for the benefit of others, that might be another discussion. ETA: Moreover, don't those anti-vaxxers have the option of homeschooling? True but that's the problem, it's a utilitarian argument. So I have to ask, where do you draw the line and, more importantly, what guides you in the line drawing? It's also pretty painless to give blood and immensely useful (life-saving even) so can we require that? It's totally painless to give up organs after death, and clearly life-saving -- should we mandate that? My problem is seeing how and where we draw the line.
|
|