Megan Murphy is on Joe Rogan

[miri1985]

Full ep here: open.spotify.com/episode/6yc6AIMf3JqLWygLQJ4Wrg

Short clip:

This is another of these instances where the left seems to want to take this very authoritarian approach and dismiss any other position, even quite moderate ones, as morally reprehensible.
So you’re saying choosing to opt out not only increases the risk for everyone else as you’re more likely to catch and transmit it, increases the strain on the hospital system, but you are relying on everyone else to take the small risk of taking the vaccine to manage those things and your personal exposure as it affects the overall level of virus in society, as well as our freedoms. That’s pretty ultimate selfishness, personally. I support benefits for people who are briefly down on their luck, have limitations on working like conditions , age, caring responsibilities. Not for healthy adults who can’t be arsed. I support vaccine mandates, and if you want to be special and refuse because you feel you personally are lower risk and because you think every one else can take the risk for you then you do get restrictions on employment etc here. Seems very fair to me!

@timeisnotaline

This is another of these instances where the left seems to want to take this very authoritarian approach and dismiss any other position, even quite moderate ones, as morally reprehensible. So you’re saying choosing to opt out not only increases the risk for everyone else as you’re more likely to catch and transmit it, increases the strain on the hospital system, but you are relying on everyone else to take the small risk of taking the vaccine to manage those things and your personal exposure as it affects the overall level of virus in society, as well as our freedoms. That’s pretty ultimate selfishness, personally. I support benefits for people who are briefly down on their luck, have limitations on working like conditions , age, caring responsibilities. Not for healthy adults who can’t be arsed. I support vaccine mandates, and if you want to be special and refuse because you feel you personally are lower risk and because you think every one else can take the risk for you then you do get restrictions on employment etc here. Seems very fair to me!

TBH it sounds like you are saying that long as there is social benefit, the law should make people comply with whatever, with no lines in the sand? No civil liberties at all.

I find that shocking but I keep seeing people who seem to be saying that, and no one seems willing to explain how they understand the concept.

Well, I have just explained the concept, so you will have to be more explicit. As long as there is significant social benefit, and opening schools and the economy is definitely significant social benefit. I see it as equivalent to seatbelts, drink driving laws and all the other vaccine mandates we already have. There are valid exemptions, and australia has anecdotally put a LOT of effort into supporting people with needle phobias. This set up means my immune compromised aunt can work and partake in society, and a million equivalent cases; it’s looking after people.

Embarrassing thanks! I didn't know that.

Info if anyone is interested-

www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-50713991

Really interesting!

People don't change do they.

I suppose smallpox was the first, vaccines were totally new thing.

That it's still happening after all the years of vaccines being used widely is... Not sure quite what but not great!

Jonas Salk worked on the polio vaccine for 2.5 years. The whole world worked on the COVID vaccines, so the fast timing if it isn’t a surprise. If Salk had been that little bit faster or had more manpower to speed it up, my mum would have got the vaccine instead of at 2 being too young for the first round of polio vaccine, so she caught polio while her vaccinated older sister didn’t. When you have something effective early adoption all the way.

As far as I know, the polio vaccine was never mandated at least here in Canada. It was a terrible disease and no one knew how it was spread. The population was rightly fearful. Mothers were desperate to protect their children so there was no need for the government to force uptake. Limited initial supply meant that not everyone could be vaccinated at once.

Covid is a different kettle of fish from polio and Meghan Murphy's concerns as reported here are worth consideration and discussion. So to are her views on feminism.

Polio vaccine is still administered along with a load of other stuff. There's a risk that with most not directly seeing consequences plus escalating anti vaxx stuff that people might turn their back on other vaccines.

As is happening here with measles. (The initial AW thing plus targeted scare stuff to various communities means uptake is really dropping off and outbreaks happening).

I read this by her-

unherd.com/thepost/the-feminist-case-against-vaccine-mandates/

I find her framing of this as a feminist issue, and citing abortion. To argue her personal views about vaccine/s.

Really manipulative, ill advised and frankly crappy.

That's my opinion.

This discussion is proving the point though. Murphy, who has concerns about civil liberties around vaccine mandates - as dose the privacy commissioner of Canada, as do the major civil liberties organizations in Canada, the US, Australia, and the UK - is being called an anti-vaxxer as a result. And supposedly we are supposed to dismiss her views on feminism as well.

Isn't there something bizarre and disturbing about that?

@NiceGerbil

I read this by her-

unherd.com/thepost/the-feminist-case-against-vaccine-mandates/

I find her framing of this as a feminist issue, and citing abortion. To argue her personal views about vaccine/s.

Really manipulative, ill advised and frankly crappy.

That's my opinion.

She's arguing based on principles of bodily autonomy, how is that crappy?

The law doesn't use one set of principles for one thing, and another for something else. Abortion in many places, including Canada, has been argued from a legal standpoint in terms of bodily autonomy in medical decision making, and also on the grounds of privacy.

If there are changes to the way the law thinks about those things, it can potentially affect other parts of the law.

Why shouldn't she put her thoughts out there to the public? It's not manipulative to show that something might have ongoing consequences that you might not want.

It is manipulative to try and shut people down because you don't like the conclusions of their arguments.

What's crappy is-

The underlying hint, which you've given more directly. That if you think X and you're a feminist then you're risking changes to abortion laws.

This is not a feminist issue. Passports, choice to vaccinate, mandating. None of that is specific to women. There's no difference for men/ women and both have a mix of views.

Framing it as a feminist issue and subtext of could impact abortion is manipulative. If you care about abortion access then you need to do/ think X. Currently seems like an argument that comes up a fair bit.

There are loads of arguments that come up around abortion and yes bodily autonomy is one.

That's not the reason it is legal though where it is. It's legal because of things like-

Consequences of it being illegal- impact on families, poverty esp child poverty, women's lives generally including health opportunities etc, the mental and physical health impacts that then need to be addressed.
There's an impact on men as well obviously.
And of course the massive toll of illegal abortions around injury, death. Girls/ women being forced as due to illegality there are plenty of people to do it.

Bottom line line is, being dispassionate about it, it saves a lot of money and reduces a lot of social issues. That's good for government.

Is there a real current popular push for changing abortion laws in aus? No idea. In England Wales while limits come up periodically, no desire to ban or make v difficult. NI just legalised which was huge.

I do think it's crappy.

Make the arguments against on own merits. Don't dangle threats at women and tell them a good feminist should agree with her because of that.

And where on earth have I said she shouldn't be allowed to express her opinions? That I want to 'shut her down'?

I'm expressing my view about what I read. That's not shutting someone down!

@timeisnotaline

Well, I have just explained the concept, so you will have to be more explicit. As long as there is significant social benefit, and opening schools and the economy is definitely significant social benefit. I see it as equivalent to seatbelts, drink driving laws and all the other vaccine mandates we already have. There are valid exemptions, and australia has anecdotally put a LOT of effort into supporting people with needle phobias. This set up means my immune compromised aunt can work and partake in society, and a million equivalent cases; it’s looking after people.

There’s a clear social benefit for children. Would you like the government getting involved in this? Telling you what you can do with your womb to the benefit of the whole society?

@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 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.

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.

@NiceGerbil

What's crappy is-

The underlying hint, which you've given more directly. That if you think X and you're a feminist then you're risking changes to abortion laws.

This is not a feminist issue. Passports, choice to vaccinate, mandating. None of that is specific to women. There's no difference for men/ women and both have a mix of views.

Framing it as a feminist issue and subtext of could impact abortion is manipulative. If you care about abortion access then you need to do/ think X. Currently seems like an argument that comes up a fair bit.

There are loads of arguments that come up around abortion and yes bodily autonomy is one.

That's not the reason it is legal though where it is. It's legal because of things like-

Consequences of it being illegal- impact on families, poverty esp child poverty, women's lives generally including health opportunities etc, the mental and physical health impacts that then need to be addressed.
There's an impact on men as well obviously.
And of course the massive toll of illegal abortions around injury, death. Girls/ women being forced as due to illegality there are plenty of people to do it.

Bottom line line is, being dispassionate about it, it saves a lot of money and reduces a lot of social issues. That's good for government.

Is there a real current popular push for changing abortion laws in aus? No idea. In England Wales while limits come up periodically, no desire to ban or make v difficult. NI just legalised which was huge.

I do think it's crappy.

Make the arguments against on own merits. Don't dangle threats at women and tell them a good feminist should agree with her because of that.

It's exactly why it's legal, or rather not illegal, in Canada, Gerbil. And it's similar in the US. The old abortion laws were struck down mainly because of implications around privacy. Autonomy and privacy are integral to court rulings on abortion.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

@NiceGerbil

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.

No it’s just a warning that eroding the right to bodily autonomy on the flimsiest of pretexts has consequences. There’s nothing crappy about it.

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.

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.

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?