Megan Murphy is on Joe Rogan

It really doesn't matter if you like the decisions courts make or personally think they are logical, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. There are thousands of articles and books on the topic, on how judges can and must make decisions, what they have to consider.

Why do you think women here are concerned about the implications in law to some of the decisions being made? It's a system of thought. If one type of case establishes that we can be forced or strongly pressured to accept invasive medical care if it is in the public good, it will affect other rulings on similar topics.

Aside from talking about precedent this article has links to a lot of other relevent principles related to legal decision making and reasoning. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent It really isn't something I am making up. Argue it with the legal system.

of course megan murphy wants us to connect her anti vaxxing to reproductive healthcare but this shows her own lack of internal logic her statement that she would vote for trump, an alleged rapist, who appointed a pro lifer on the supreme court and leads a party that is now dismantling women's reproductive healthcare in the US flatly contradicts her claims to support any other woman's right to choose. very glad to hear she left canada. so many nazis escaped to south america after the war. she must have family down there then.

I can't believe you're serious!

If it's all logic why are all the debates etc needed when so many laws are created or altered?

I enjoy chatting to you but I don't think that point is one of your best!

Oh come off it. You know that laws aren't any logic! I mean seriously?

Why are the drug laws so illogical? If not for historical and political reasons?

Why are abortion laws different in different parts of the UK? If it's to do with logic?

If you can explain how those laws are logical and consistent then I'd be really interested as... I can't see any possible way to argue that are based in logic...

Do people seriously not understand how legal reasoning works?! Or that it exists at all?

This is just completely false. It's not how the law works.

Why will I have to go to a hospital with unvaccinated people? It’s a small private hospital, all staff vaccinated, all patients temperature checked on arrival, very limited contact with other mums for check up ie there are sometimes a couple in the waiting room, not enough others around to come within a couple of metres, and once 37 weeks if not vaccinated a mum needs weekly testing and unvaccinated partners won’t be allowed in. I will have barely any contact and no care from unvaccinated people.
I do have unvaccinated children, I can only mitigate risk to a reasonable level and that’s through vaccinating.

You have an unvaccinated son.

Honestly, how long will you demand indoor spaces be only open to the vaccinated? You are pregnant, you will eventually have to go to a hospital that has unvaccinated people.

Pretty soon, we’ll all need a third shot to be considered fully vaccinated. Do you really want to be on this treadmill for the foreseeable future?

It’s especially egregious in that the people who tend to get sick and die from COVID are not working age people. It’s targeting the wrong set of people.

Actually it’s mandatory right now to have a vaccine to go into a non essential shop. I’m pregnant so we click and collect or my husband goes for food shop etc. no one can go travelling without being vaccinated, no one is allowed into an event or a conference to be vaccinated. I couldn’t take my son to a party at a venue later this month if I werent vaccinated, or to their swimming lessons as I wouldn’t be allowed into a pool. I can’t sit down at a cafe or restaurant or go to the cinemas or gym if not vaccinated. So I’m pretty comfortable that they are all an acceptable risk level. I wouldn’t see unvaccinated friends in my house, but I don’t have any of those for that to be a concern. Not quite the gotcha you thought it was.

How can you ever live a normal life if you don’t feel safe right now with a vaccine? How can you go shopping, travelling, go to any indoor event or conference?

The vaccine will protect you from death or severe symptoms, so it literally doesn’t matter what someone else puts in their body. It’s safe to go to your office, even if it doesn’t ‘feel’ safe (I feel like this on flights—it doesn’t feel safe even though it absolutely is)

I’ve stated my exact same reasoning that applies here several times on this thread. I assume you’ve ignored it as you disagree. I don’t want to share an office with unvaccinated people who are more likely to have and hence to transmit COVID to me.

have just responded to my company survey on vaccination approach for the office to say they can’t ensure a safe environment for employees without having mandatory vaccination

What was your reasoning?

This conversation is a warning about listening to the flimsiest of pretext leads to truly rubbish arguments , that’s for sure! I have just responded to my company survey on vaccination approach for the office to say they can’t ensure a safe environment for employees without having mandatory vaccination. I might go back and add that all employees should know I have no opinion or right to one as to whether other employees are getting abortions or not as that as absolutely none of my business. Just kidding, obviously my work see no connection at all as there isn’t any.

You can try to comfort yourself that this is somehow very different, but it’s based on the tension between an individual right and the aggregate interests of society.

Sometimes pregnant women were forced to have children for the health of society. In China, it was in the interests of society to force an individual woman to have an abortion.

Well quite.

Argue vaccine thing on its own factors.

Telling women that if they don't fight it they risk losing abortion rights is crappy.

This ‘logical consistency’ seems like a fabricated linking of issues with very different impacts. Abortion ban = huge impact on women, and only women’s bodies, no benefit to society except down define alleviating their moral outrage as a net benefit. Mandatory vaccination-affects everyone, significant societal benefit, huge majority of cases zero impact on recipient except they are safer from disease. Logical consistency says these are not comparable.

And in fact I'm having trouble with the link at all.

The argument I think is that a govt mandating vaccination would be violating the individuals right to decide what happens to their body?

The purported risk then is that when pregnant a woman's decision about abortion could be limited or removed by govt. Or, presumably, abortion could be forced.

But that choice is already limited pretty much everywhere. And in many places getting one can be dependent not just on weeks Pg but on others factors. So laws already restrict bodily autonomy in this area.

There are also plenty of other times law restricts. I'm guessing at least some of these apply to aus/Canada?
Things like-
Being sectioned
Getting a tattoo
Laws around age for sex
Health and safety laws
I mean there's prob more but you get the drift.

'That's just saying it's manipulative to try and make rational arguments about issues. So awful, using reason to try and make your point, expecting logical consistency.'

In general laws are about things like harm, social views, religious views, views of those in power, reactions to things that happen. That sort of thing. They're not to do with logical consistency.

I'm in England. As I mentioned. Naturally I know more about things here than in other countries.

I disagree that the reason abortion is legal here is about bodily autonomy. You don't mention UK in response so I assume you agree with that. I admit I have no idea why abortion was legalised in the countries that you mention. Whether access to abortion is being seriously challenged etc.

That's always the problem when people from one country are commenting on things elsewhere. As much as I follow women's rights etc around the world I've not had Canada or aus cross my radar.

If it's the case that there is major push to restrict or ban in those countries that has support
And the laws saying abortion can happen under these circs were based on bodily autonomy

Then yes that's different.

I would point out also though that by law people have limits put on bodily autonomy in various circs.

I just dont buy it.

Unless there is specific actual current risk of laws changing, and they were based in bodily autonomy.

And bodily autonomy is argued all the time by activists as a fundamental element in abortion rights. There are threads where people say this active right now.

It's not manipulative to ask people if they are being consistent in their application, or to point out that there are potentially legal consequences to changes in legal precedent on these things.

Feminists don't own the arguments around abortion and get to decide where it is ok to apply them.

That's just saying it's manipulative to try and make rational arguments about issues. So awful, using reason to try and make your point, expecting logical consistency.

Pointing out that there is potentially an inconsistency between two ideas is how rational discussions work.

That doesn’t apply in australia either. I don’t know if it really applies in Europe, children in care fall through the cracks everywhere as do children of mums who can’t cope.

[quote timeisnotaline]@UsedUpUsername what’s the social benefit for children just to be born, to mums who don’t want them? There’s only a social benefit if they grow up to contribute really. I don’t think there is an overall social or economic benefit to ban abortion.[/quote]
In a high welfare state, there’s a clear social benefit to more children that are well provided for by the state. That’s why abortion is relatively restricted in much of Europe (compared to UK).

In the US and UK that obviously doesn’t apply since children are not well provided for by the state.

@UsedUpUsername what’s the social benefit for children just to be born, to mums who don’t want them? There’s only a social benefit if they grow up to contribute really. I don’t think there is an overall social or economic benefit to ban abortion.