Vaccines and Abortion - Inconsistent Logic

[Tree of Life]

Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:

1. Absolute personal autonomy
2. Scientism

But these values come into conflict in two of the most controversial medical ethical issues of our time: vaccines and abortion.

Those who support "reproductive rights" will wave the flag of absolute personal autonomy. "My body, my choice." "Keep your laws off my ovaries." Etc. The most persuasive argument for the moral permissibility of abortion is widely regarded to be Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument. In her argument, the personhood of the fetus is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the mother has a moral obligation to donate her body to the fetus for nine months. She argues that the mother has no such obligation, so abortion is morally permissible.

Arguing that the fetus is not a morally significant agent with rights has been shown to be a philosophical dead end. And so this line has been abandoned in favor of Thomson's line of argumentation. Note the reliance on the value of absolute personal autonomy.

But the same people will not apply this logic to issues surrounding something like vaccination. Recently New York City has ordered mandatory vaccinations for some. Here the flag of scientism is waved. "Vaccines are effective." "The science is with vaccines." "Non-vaxers are conspiracy theorists." Etc. If a non-vaxer were to wave the absolute personal autonomy flag here it would not be allowed to fly. "My body, my choice" would not be acceptable to the people who push vaccines. But these are usually the same people who wave this flag in favor of abortion rights.

You might say: But in the case of vaccines, it's not just your body that is at stake. By not getting vaccinated you are also endangering others.

Okay. I would argue that the same is true - in fact more true - in cases of abortion. It's not just the woman's body at stake, but also the fetus whose life she is ending when she gets an abortion.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either embrace absolute personal autonomy or scientism, but you cannot have both because of the contradictions that ensue.

 

[MariaJLM]

I can and I will subscribe to both because anti-vaxxers are a danger to society, particularly the immunocompromised, while abortion is outright murder.

 

[Nithavela]

Did you know that the wizard in your profile picture is summoning a demon?

[Info removed by poster because of satanic iconography.]

 

[MariaJLM]

Did you know that the wizard in your profile picture is summoning a demon?

[image removed.]

I see the Satanic emblem in the background too.

 

[Tree of Life]

Did you know that the wizard in your profile picture is summoning a demon?

Yeah for sure.

 

[Tree of Life]

I can and I will subscribe to both because anti-vaxxers are a danger to society, particularly the immunocompromised, while abortion is outright murder.

I'm not sure you've understood me. When you say that abortion is outright murder you are opposing the value of absolute personal autonomy. And you should!

 

[MariaJLM]

I'm not sure you've understood me. When you say that abortion is outright murder you are opposing the value of absolute personal autonomy. And you should!

I may have misread. I just got home a little while ago and am exhausted.

 

[archer75]

Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:

1. Absolute personal autonomy
2. Scientism

But these values come into conflict in two of the most controversial medical ethical issues of our time: vaccines and abortion.

Those who support "reproductive rights" will wave the flag of absolute personal autonomy. "My body, my choice." "Keep your laws off my ovaries." Etc. The most persuasive argument for the moral permissibility of abortion is widely regarded to be Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument. In her argument, the personhood of the fetus is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the mother has a moral obligation to donate her body to the fetus for nine months. She argues that the mother has no such obligation, so abortion is morally permissible.

Arguing that the fetus is not a morally significant agent with rights has been shown to be a philosophical dead end. And so this line has been abandoned in favor of Thomson's line of argumentation. Note the reliance on the value of absolute personal autonomy.

But the same people will not apply this logic to issues surrounding something like vaccination. Recently New York City has ordered mandatory vaccinations for some. Here the flag of scientism is waved. "Vaccines are effective." "The science is with vaccines." "Non-vaxers are conspiracy theorists." Etc. If a non-vaxer were to wave the absolute personal autonomy flag here it would not be allowed to fly. "My body, my choice" would not be acceptable to the people who push vaccines. But these are usually the same people who wave this flag in favor of abortion rights.

You might say: But in the case of vaccines, it's not just your body that is at stake. By not getting vaccinated you are also endangering others.

Okay. I would argue that the same is true - in fact more true - in cases of abortion. It's not just the woman's body at stake, but also the fetus whose life she is ending when she gets an abortion.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either embrace absolute personal autonomy or scientism, but you cannot have both because of the contradictions that ensue.

Who embraces absolute personal autonomy? Have you seen this pushed somewhere? Does Islam push it? Buddhism?

 

[Tree of Life]

Who embraces absolute personal autonomy? Have you seen this pushed somewhere? Does Islam push it? Buddhism?

I'm speaking specifically about western, secular non-Christian thought. But I suspect this tendency can be found within systems like Buddhism and perhaps even Islam.

 

[Sketcher]

Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:

1. Absolute personal autonomy
2. Scientism

But these values come into conflict in two of the most controversial medical ethical issues of our time: vaccines and abortion.

Those who support "reproductive rights" will wave the flag of absolute personal autonomy. "My body, my choice." "Keep your laws off my ovaries." Etc. The most persuasive argument for the moral permissibility of abortion is widely regarded to be Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument. In her argument, the personhood of the fetus is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the mother has a moral obligation to donate her body to the fetus for nine months. She argues that the mother has no such obligation, so abortion is morally permissible.

Arguing that the fetus is not a morally significant agent with rights has been shown to be a philosophical dead end. And so this line has been abandoned in favor of Thomson's line of argumentation. Note the reliance on the value of absolute personal autonomy.

But the same people will not apply this logic to issues surrounding something like vaccination. Recently New York City has ordered mandatory vaccinations for some. Here the flag of scientism is waved. "Vaccines are effective." "The science is with vaccines." "Non-vaxers are conspiracy theorists." Etc. If a non-vaxer were to wave the absolute personal autonomy flag here it would not be allowed to fly. "My body, my choice" would not be acceptable to the people who push vaccines. But these are usually the same people who wave this flag in favor of abortion rights.

You might say: But in the case of vaccines, it's not just your body that is at stake. By not getting vaccinated you are also endangering others.

Okay. I would argue that the same is true - in fact more true - in cases of abortion. It's not just the woman's body at stake, but also the fetus whose life she is ending when she gets an abortion.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either embrace absolute personal autonomy or scientism, but you cannot have both because of the contradictions that ensue.

I'm pro-life myself, but this isn't an argument I would make.

In the case of a child who isn't vaccinated, you're not only subjecting that child to a preventable disease, but other children to it as well, since herd immunity breaks down.

With abortion on the other hand, it stops with just killing your child, there's no known externality that affects children who were allowed to live.

 

[GodLovesCats]

My argument in favor of abortion would not be absolute personal autonomy. Rather, my preference is for the mother to provide a logical reason she must terminate her pregnancy prematurely. Even if it's illogical to pro-lifers, she could have a good reason to do it. Don't kill me for this, but I can think of good reasons, such as lacking the money and ability to care for a baby. I cannot say the same thing about vaccines.

 

[Nithavela]

I see the Satanic emblem in the background too.

I missed that. I'm going to remove the picture so I don't get a warning, I advise you to too.

 

[Strathos]

I missed that. I'm going to remove the picture so I don't get a warning, I advise you to too.

You can get warnings for posting pictures of pentagrams?

 

[Nithavela]

You can get warnings for posting pictures of pentagrams?

I imagine that pentagrams with devil faces aren't allowed. Better safe than sorry.

 

[Gene2memE]

Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:

1. Absolute personal autonomy
2. Scientism

Want a hand piling up all that straw?

But these values come into conflict in two of the most controversial medical ethical issues of our time: vaccines and abortion.

Scientism isn't a value.

Depending on the sense you're using it, its broadly either an approach to epistemology that asserts that only the sciences can be used to develop knowledge about reality, or an ideology that everything can be reduced to metrics measurable by the sciences.

Neither is a value.

Those who support "reproductive rights" will wave the flag of absolute personal autonomy. "My body, my choice." "Keep your laws off my ovaries." Etc. The most persuasive argument for the moral permissibility of abortion is widely regarded to be Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument. In her argument, the personhood of the fetus is absolutely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the mother has a moral obligation to donate her body to the fetus for nine months. She argues that the mother has no such obligation, so abortion is morally permissible.

Sure, ongoing informed consent is required.

Arguing that the fetus is not a morally significant agent with rights has been shown to be a philosophical dead end. And so this line has been abandoned in favor of Thomson's line of argumentation.

Has it. By who? When?

But the same people will not apply this logic to issues surrounding something like vaccination. Recently New York City has ordered mandatory vaccinations for some. Here the flag of scientism is waved. "Vaccines are effective." "The science is with vaccines." "Non-vaxers are conspiracy theorists."

That isn't scientism, that's recognition of reality. All of those things are demonstrably true.

Vaccines ARE effective
The available scientific evidence shows vaccines reduce illnesses and deaths in a population, compared to a non-vaccinated population.
Those who expose anti-vaccine rhetoric are strongly correlated with those who expose conspiracy theories.

Etc. If a non-vaxer were to wave the absolute personal autonomy flag here it would not be allowed to fly. "My body, my choice" would not be acceptable to the people who push vaccines. But these are usually the same people who wave this flag in favor of abortion rights.

The difference here is that there is a societal risk involved in not vaccinating. There is no such risk if someone chooses to end a pregnancy.

So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either embrace absolute personal autonomy or scientism, but you cannot have both because of the contradictions that ensue.

This is a false dichotomy. Nothing about taking stances of 'absolute personal autonomy' and 'scientism' are exclusionary or contradictory - except in the fantasy versions of these you have created.

 

[ThievingMagpie]

I think your arguement would carry more weight if by having an abortion you risked aborting someone else's pregnancy. But you don't, so it doesn't.

 

[Strathos]

I imagine that pentagrams with devil faces aren't allowed. Better safe than sorry.

What if you're just presenting them in an instructional manner?

For example: 'This is the symbol used by this specific Satanist group. If you see someone using this symbol, it means they likely believe such-and-such.'

 

[KCfromNC]

Non-Christian thought is full of logical inconsistencies. Here's just another example. Non-Christian thought usually champions these two values:

1. Absolute personal autonomy
2. Scientism

Citation needed. How often, specifically, are each of these two "values" found in non-Christian thought, and what's the correlation between them.

Honestly, I smell strawman.

 

[Tree of Life]

My argument in favor of abortion would not be absolute personal autonomy. Rather, my preference is for the mother to provide a logical reason she must terminate her pregnancy prematurely. Even if it's illogical to pro-lifers, she could have a good reason to do it. Don't kill me for this, but I can think of good reasons, such as lacking the money and ability to care for a baby. I cannot say the same thing about vaccines.

Lacking the means to care for a child is a good reason to kill the child? I'm no genius, but I could think of much better alternatives!

 

[Tree of Life]

Scientism isn't a value.

Depending on the sense you're using it, its broadly either an approach to epistemology that asserts that only the sciences can be used to develop knowledge about reality, or an ideology that everything can be reduced to metrics measurable by the sciences.

Neither is a value.

Okay that's fair. These are two ideologies that are in conflict.

Sure, ongoing informed consent is required.

Noted. Because of the mother's absolute personal autonomy, informed ongoing consent is required. Hold that thought.

Has it. By who? When?

Philosophers since Thomson have abandoned that line of argumentation in favor of Thomson's. Arguments like Marquis' FLO argument have demonstrated that a fetus is morally valuable even if it is not yet a person. Any argument from personhood in favor of abortion ends up proving too much as it usually equally applies to cases of infanticide. Peter Singer, as I recall, may support something like an argument from personhood. But he also has no problem with infanticide.

That isn't scientism, that's recognition of reality. All of those things are demonstrably true.

Vaccines ARE effective
The available scientific evidence shows vaccines reduce illnesses and deaths in a population, compared to a non-vaccinated population.
Those who expose anti-vaccine rhetoric are strongly correlated with those who expose conspiracy theories.

It is also demonstrably true that the life of a human being is ended by abortion.

The difference here is that there is a societal risk involved in not vaccinating. There is no such risk if someone chooses to end a pregnancy.

I call this an unfounded assumption. Killing humans, even in fetal form, does harm society. It also harms fetuses. It's very misleading to say that only the body of the mother or the rights of the mother are in play in the case of abortion. Not even Thomson argues this. But here you've appealed to absolute personal autonomy. It was useful for you in the case of abortion, but here you've abandoned it in the case of vaccination. You're being inconsistent.

This is a false dichotomy. Nothing about taking stances of 'absolute personal autonomy' and 'scientism' are exclusionary or contradictory - except in the fantasy versions of these you have created.

You've demonstrated your own inconsistency above.