Political Crossfire Forums

[Obilisk18]

One of the common arguments advanced by those in favor of legalized abortion, concerns a woman's intrinsic rights to bodily sovereignty. This right, it is said, has a quality which invalidates any laws that would attempt to force women to carry a child to term. The right is asserted as absolute (indeed, the validity of Roe hinges on it).

Ignoring for a moment, the various ways in which the government freely restricts bodily actions (murder, theft), let's consider the concept of invasion, a category in which an "unwanted" pregnancy is typically situated.

Let us consider the question of vaccinations. As the law currently stands, state governments are well within their rights to mandate vaccinations. This position has been advanced by the Supreme Court as far back as Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905). A unwanted vaccination is, by any conceivable definition, an invasion of bodily sovereignty. Indeed, it connects quite closely to the notion of unwanted pregnancy's. Living organisms (bacteria) are injected into the body, and gain access to vital bodily resources in a way that constitutes a clear and direct violation. Yet, the Supreme Court has clearly held that, and let me quote Jacobson here, "even liberty itself...is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others." Jacobson further held, and this was predicated upon an earlier decision Crowley v. Christensen (1890), that laws may be created which restrict liberty and rights to bodily sovereignty, if created upon a reasonable basis, and in pursuit of basic goods of society. The standard used here and in further cases involving innoculation is not the same standard applied to Roe. Indeed, they are of an entirely different magnitude. Roe asserts that, in the restriction of bodily sovereignty, the state must have, not merely a reasonable interest (as asserted in Jacobson and Crowley) or even a compelling interest (to some degree asserted in Griswold), but an unimpeachable interest. This standard has been advanced in absolutely no other category of law and violates both the court's previous precedents and many of its subsequent decisions concerning liberty.

This is not particularly surprising, because using the first two standards, it is difficult to see how Roe could possibly hold up. The state certainly may (though not necessarily must) have a reasonable or compelling interest in regulating those actions which it believes to end the life of it's inhabitants. Even under the strictest interpretation, this fits squarely in Jacobson's "safety of the general public" clause. The argument is typically advanced that because the personhood of fetuses has not been established, and indeed that view is held by a minority of a community's inhabitants, societies neither have a reasonable or compelling interest in restricting abortion.

Yet, this argument is difficult to follow, because it seems to tacitly rely on the unimpeachable standard followed by Roe. That is to say, it does not follow that because not all parties agree on a particular action's consequences, the government may not restrict this action. Indeed, Roe itself asserts this premise noting that "logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth."

If the government may innoculate you without your permission, and thus thouroughly invade your bodily sovereignty in pursuit of what it deems to be a higher good, and if this pursuit is not an unreasonable interest, which the Supreme Court, even in it's most incoherent moments (Roe), has deemed the protection of pre-natal life to be, then it is absurd to assert that abortion may not be regulated by the states, using those standards that they deem necessary. Hundred's of years of precedent attests to this.

[agentkgb]

I don't stand anywhere on abortion, but I'm against mandated vaccinations.

[Obilisk18]

agentkgb wrote: I don't stand anywhere on abortion, but I'm against mandated vaccinations.

I don't have much of an opinion. But, I think mandated vaccines are certainly within the government's purview of authority.

[Selfish_Meme]

vaccination saves born children/adults - infringes bodily sovereignty
abortion ends unborn children - preserves bodily sovereignty/privacy
So the bodily sovereinty of born children and adults is infringed to save the lives of other born children and adults, but not to save the lives of the unborn.

The issue then is still the difference between the born and unborn, so this has progressed no argument.

Rubella does not kill the unborn it induces a congenital syndrome. Just in case anyone was going to use its vaccination as a case of saving unborn lives. It is also not given to pregnant mothers.

[Obilisk18]

Selfish_Meme wrote: vaccination saves born children/adults - infringes bodily sovereignty
abortion ends unborn children - preserves bodily sovereignty/privacy
So the bodily sovereinty of born children and adults is infringed to save the lives of other born children and adults, but not to save the lives of the unborn.

The issue then is still the difference between the born and unborn, so this has progressed no argument.

Rubella does not kill the unborn it induces a congenital syndrome. Just in case anyone was going to use its vaccination as a case of saving unborn lives. It is also not given to pregnant mothers.

My point is, an unwanted vaccination constitutes a direct invasion of bodily sovereignty. You can argue that it is invasion which is beneficial, but there's no question I could also argue that a pregnancy, and having a child is beneficial. But these are not the grounds on which the court upholds state sanctioned vaccinations. After all, I cannot be forced to eat celery, by the state, simply because it's healthy. The court holds that the state can mandate vaccinations, and thus invade bodily sovereignty, because it has a legitimate interest in a protecting the rest of the populace from disease. In so doing the court firmly established the principle that a state may invade ones body, or restrain ones bodily sovereignty, to the extent that the effects of such invasion promoted a legitimate public good that the state has an interest in promoting. So what is it, precisely, about abortion that differentiates it from vaccination laws? Both promote, by the courts own admission, a legitimate state interest, and in so doing invade bodily sovereignty. In many ways, the invasion of a vaccination is far more insidious then the invasion of illegal abortion. In the first case, the state is forcibly mandating that you have something done to you against your will. In the second, it is merely asking that you refrain from having something done (an abortion). After all, the state never prosecuted women who had involuntary miscarriages.

[agentkgb]

Obilisk18 wrote: agentkgb wrote: I don't stand anywhere on abortion, but I'm against mandated vaccinations.

I don't have much of an opinion. But, I think mandated vaccines are certainly within the government's purview of authority.
If people don't want a vaccination then what right does the government have to make them?

[Prog]

Obilisk18 wrote: You can argue that it is invasion which is beneficial, but there's no question I could also argue that a pregnancy, and having a child is beneficial.

You could, yet the "benefits" of a pregnancy become a subjective argument.

The question of women's bodily sovereignty/privacy in relation to abortion, involves the right of the woman in question the free choice in allowing/disallowing another human-entity to impinge upon her body for the latter's survival.

"Benefits" are relative to this choice.

[Obilisk18]

Prog wrote: Obilisk18 wrote: You can argue that it is invasion which is beneficial, but there's no question I could also argue that a pregnancy, and having a child is beneficial.

You could, yet the "benefits" of a pregnancy become a subjective argument.

The question of women's bodily sovereignty/privacy in relation to abortion, involves the right of the woman in question the free choice in allowing/disallowing another human-entity to impinge upon her body for the latter's survival.

"Benefits" are relative to this choice.

A woman doesn't have the free choice to allow/disallow the living bacteria in vaccines to impinge upon her body. Why should abortion be any different? Again, if we're leaving out subjective judgments of benefits of pregnancy versus benefits of vaccines (for the individual, not for the government), then the only substantive difference between the two is that with the former, the government would merely ask you to refrain from doing something (obtaining an abortion), while it the second it establishes something you must do (become vaccinated). A law which forces you to do something is much more insidious then one which merely circumscribes your behavior.

[Prog]

Under the context of this thread, this quote is simply misleading:

Obilisk18 wrote:

A law which forces you to do something is much more insidious then one which merely circumscribes your behavior.


Obilisk18 wrote: ....the only substantive difference between the two is that with the former, the government would merely ask you to refrain from doing something (obtaining an abortion), while it the second it establishes something you must do (become vaccinated).

There's quite more substance to the issue than you seem to indicate.

Vaccinations are required by the government for the overall well-being of a productive and healthy society. This could fall within the 14th amendment under individual's right to protection.

By contrast, abortion rights are individual rights pertaining to the use and privacy of one's own body. Barring a sudden decrease in human population (read: vaccinations) the government need not subjugate its will (abortion restrictions) upon the individual, for lack of societal benefit. (debatable "moral benefits" nonwithstanding)