Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I asked a question on another thread, and I think it is a good one, so i am going to give it its own thread.

Zuloo has declared that abortion is legal is zuloo.

The average family income in zuloo is 50 000, but of course, some make more and some make less.

Abortion cost 100 000$ in zuloo and finding a doctor to perform an abortion is difficult.

Is abortion still a choice a zuloo?

_________

ETA: why is this on a vaccine forum? People argue that people have the choice to not vaccinate, even in states with strict mandates, as they can always chose to homeschool. The loss of wages that can come with the decision to homeschool can be huge. Over the course of a school career, it is well over 100 000$.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
It is a choice only for the wealthy and well-connected.

Just like using marijuana in states where it isn't legal yet is a choice for the wealthy and well-connected.

The 18-year-old first kid (Malia Obama) was caught smoking what looks like a joint at a concert in a video that emerged Wednesday....Her commander-in-chief dad admitted in his memoir to smoking pot and using “a little blow” in high school and college.

But if you are neither of those you could possibly do, as one man is, 13 years for possessing 2 joints under the 3 strikes rules.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,471 Posts
John Phillips, of the Mamas and the Papas, was up on drug charges, selling and possessing at one point where he was facing 45 years in prison, but he served just six weeks starting appropriately enough on April 20 at Club Fed. - source, Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon, by David MacGowan.

Oh, what tho$e connection$ can do for you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: samaxtics

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,450 Posts
I asked a question on another thread, and I think it is a good one, so i am going to give it its own thread.

Zuloo has declared that abortion is legal is zuloo.

The average family income in zuloo is 50 000, but of course, some make more and some make less.

Abortion cost 100 000$ in zuloo and finding a doctor to perform an abortion is difficult.

Is abortion still a choice a zuloo?
This question can only be valid if you believe in the canard that killing unborn babies is merely a 'choice'.
[video removed]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,481 Posts
The point that I see in the OP is that there is a difference between choice and free choice.

Even in the most coercive circumstances, there is choice---either take what somebody is coercing you into doing or take the consequences. Taking this line of thought to its most absurd conclusion, a kidnapper could say, "Of course you have a choice. Just don't pay us, and we'll kill your loved one. See? Choice!"

Coercion can come from the State, others who hold power over you, or just your circumstances. If you look at the reasons why women choose abortion, there are usually coercive circumstances, with a loss of a job, education, economic stability, or social/familial supports being the consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Let's look at another example. The old Mommy War debate over stay-at-home motherhood versus working outside the home stems from a premise of privilege; many mothers "choose" salaried work because they have to. Of course, if you are this mother in CA, WV, or MS, you're going to "choose" to give your child all of the vaccines because you can't afford to quit your job to homeschool. From the policy-makers' perspective, poor women are the easiest target to push around.

Pretty please, nobody do anything to kill this thread because given how it applies to the vaccine issue, this topic is worth exploring further. :grin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
The point that I see in the OP is that there is a difference between choice and free choice.

Even in the most coercive circumstances, there is choice---either take what somebody is coercing you into doing or take the consequences. Taking this line of thought to its most absurd conclusion, a kidnapper could say, "Of course you have a choice. Just don't pay us, and we'll kill your loved one. See? Choice!"

Coercion can come from the State, others who hold power over you, or just your circumstances. If you look at the reasons why women choose abortion, there are usually coercive circumstances, with a loss of a job, education, economic stability, or social/familial supports being the consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Let's look at another example. The old Mommy War debate over stay-at-home motherhood versus working outside the home stems from a premise of privilege; many mothers "choose" salaried work because they have to. Of course, if you are this mother in CA, WV, or MS, you're going to "choose" to give your child all of the vaccines because you can't afford to quit your job to homeschool. From the policy-makers' perspective, poor women are the easiest target to push around.

Pretty please, nobody do anything to kill this thread because given how it applies to the vaccine issue, this topic is worth exploring further. :grin:
I think it is a good thread, but I think @kathymuggles was unwise in her choice of metaphor.

See what I did, there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
This question can only be valid if you believe in the canard that killing unborn babies is merely a 'choice'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxou1UADa4E
I do not want this thread to became about pro-life or pro-choice. We really are not allowed to debate abortion, anyways.

I used abortion as an example, but I will propose an alternate example in a few lines.

You make a good point. If you are pro-life and believe that abortion is taking a life, then that is as much as a choice to you as someone whose child had a severe or several severe vaccine reaction giving their child a vaccine.

Not everyone can homeschool and this is doubly the case if the child has special needs. Special needs children cost more, and often need school, and its services more. Parents often need the break more as well.

Maybe the thing is: others should not be able to dictate to us when something is a choice. They do not walk in our shoes.

"Choice" in the discussion on mandates just seems like a "get out of jail free card". Policy makers can say - "oh, they have choice" without having to look at whether the policy was fair in the first place, or the consequences for making an unpopular choice (not even illegal!) reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Oops. Forgot.

Alternate example so we discuss freedom of choice versus an abortion debate:

You have a serious chronic disease. It impacts greatly your quality of life. Your family earns about 60 000 a year. There is a drug available that you could use, that you want to try, but it will cost you 45 000$ a year. You cannot afford the drug and food, mortgage etc.

A person comes along and say "oh, too bad you are in pain, but it is a choice you are making...you could buy xyz drug" Aside from the person being an insensitive cad, is this a fair statement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts
To me "choice" is a red herring topic. It's not really about choosing to vaccinate or not vaccinate, it's about what society can demand from its members in order to allow full participation in that society. No different from, say, driving a car. It can be your free choice not to have a driver's license, but you must be able to accept the lifestyle that comes with that...not being able to drive a car to the places you need to go. On the other hand, society can take that driver's license away if you have proven in someway unsafe as a driver, leaving you without the choice but everyone else safer as a result. There are simply certain obligations that each of us has to everyone else, and as a group we decide what those obligations are. You don't necessarily have to abide by them, but there will be societal consequences of that option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
852 Posts
And I tend to lean libertarian in the sense that if what I do doesn't affect you, I should be able to do what I want. But there's a big difference between libertarian-live-off-the-land-with-a-shotgun and libertarian-live-in-a-town-with-people-and-services. In the latter case, you know, you have to do your part to the best of your ability. Pay taxes, keep your lawn reasonably neat, and get vaccinated. :shrug

And yes, I get that keeping your lawn neat is not an invasive medical procedure and therefore a terrible, terrible analogy, but it's all part of the social contract.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
To me "choice" is a red herring topic. It's not really about choosing to vaccinate or not vaccinate, it's about what society can demand from its members in order to allow full participation in that society. No different from, say, driving a car. It can be your free choice not to have a driver's license, but you must be able to accept the lifestyle that comes with that...not being able to drive a car to the places you need to go. On the other hand, society can take that driver's license away if you have proven in someway unsafe as a driver, leaving you without the choice but everyone else safer as a result. There are simply certain obligations that each of us has to everyone else, and as a group we decide what those obligations are. You don't necessarily have to abide by them, but there will be societal consequences of that option.
This conversation came about because people have argued that it is ok to have mandates because people are free to choose whether to vaccinate, as they can always HS if they do not vaccinate.

Here, an example in the UCLA law review:

http://www.uclalawreview.org/vaccines-school-mandates-californias-right-education/

"The same is true regarding the choice to follow school immunization requirements. Parents do have a choice: They can vaccinate, protecting their children against disease, following the state requirements. Or, if sufficiently hostile to the requirement, they can choose one of the available options. There are several choices available. Parents can choose to homeschool as a private school, by filing an affidavit,[83] alone or as part of a group of families (the statute was amended to allow a group of families to homeschool together). While hard for working parents, this decision can still be made feasible through the option of collaborating with other families. Or parents can hire an accredited tutor.[84] Or parents can enroll their children in an independent study program offered by a public school."

I am arguing that if something is unattainable due to the severity of the consequences (such as not being able to put food on ones table) then it really isn't a choice for that person. Maslov's pyramid of needs put food and shelter right at the base of needs.

As per the bolded, I agree that there are consequences for not abiding by social norms, or what society collectively wants. Generally, as long as the thing someone is doing is not against the law, the consequences are societal (such as exclusion). If someone breaks the law there is a penalty - but one expects in a fair society for the penalty to be reasonable. Using the car example, if I leave my kids unbuckled int the car , I face a fine of up to $1000 and 2 demerit points (out of 12), assuming I am caught. This is for something that is a law, and likely leads to more child deaths that being unvaccinated currently does. Contrast this with perfectly well children being excluded from school - and the consequences of that. So, even if you think it is reasonable for there to be consequences for not vaccinating (which is arguable - it is not against the law) are the consequences reasonable and in line with other consequences for similar actions?

_____

Anecdote alert: My youngest is in school this year. She came home saying the school was on "yellow alert" because a student was having a meltdown/rampage. If the school cannot get a handle on the situation, the child will likely be sent to a school where they can handle more intense behaviours, all on the tax payers dime. This child, who poses an actual safety threat, can get a public education...but if my unavxxed child were in California she could not, despite being posing no current threat to anyone (unlike the child who caused a code yellow).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Yes it is a choice. Choice and "easy choice to make" are not the same thing.

We consider Abortion a choice in America (I am also choosing not to get into whether I think it should be a choice) but there are very few providers who will perform it. So if someone wishes to make that choice, they will likely have to drive hundreds of miles (for some women it may be thousands as several states have only 1 provider). We also consider late term abortion a choice, there are currently 4 providers in the entire United States who perform this, but it is still considered a choice. There are waiting periods, mandatory ultrasound, mandatory counseling, and several visits required. Still a choice.

The choice not to vaccinate, is not costly in the choice (choosing not to vaccinate is free). But making that choice, limits other choices you may face later. I don't think the fact that choices have consequences means they are not choices. I choose not to handle firearms, that is not costly, but because of that choice I cannot be a police officer, as handling firearms is required for that profession. If I choose not to vaccinate, I may not be able to go to some schools, because vaccination is required for that choice. It may be harder to obtain a physician for other healthcare needs, because some physicians are making the choice not to serve individuals who don't vaccinate (though there are substantially more doctors willing to accept non-vaccinating parents than there are doctors who perform abortion, which again we consider a choice).

Every choice we make has potential consequences. The fact that the choice is not free of consequences, doesn't not negate the fact that it is a choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Yes it is a choice. Choice and "easy choice to make" are not the same thing...

Every choice we make has potential consequences. The fact that the choice is not free of consequences, doesn't not negate the fact that it is a choice.
But then we run into this situation....

The point that I see in the OP is that there is a difference between choice and free choice.

Even in the most coercive circumstances, there is choice---either take what somebody is coercing you into doing or take the consequences. Taking this line of thought to its most absurd conclusion, a kidnapper could say, "Of course you have a choice. Just don't pay us, and we'll kill your loved one. See? Choice!"

:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
So, Dakotacake and Dear Rosemary...would you agree that abortion/a particular medication is still a choice if it is costed out of reach of most people (such as income of 50K, while the procedures cost 100k)?

Just trying to clarify.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
A choice is just that, a choice. yes it is still a choice if the procedure was out of reach for most people. In reality, that is the current state of affairs, abortion is out of reach for most people (it is not covered by insurance, can be very expensive, and there are very few providers, and transportation costs add up fast when you have to make 3+ trips to a clinic that is hundreds of miles away and have no vacation time). It is still considered a choice.

Not everyone can make every choice they want to make, because choices have consequences. When you make one choice, it may limit future choices in other areas. This is true of almost every choice we make.

Also, the choice to not vaccinate doesn't cost twice the yearly income of an individual. Not vaccinating is free that choice is within everyone reach. Choosing private education may be out of reach, etc. But that is a second choice that may be more or less desirable based on the choice not to vaccinate.

Choices have consequences. Doesn't mean they aren't choices. That is as clear as I can be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,628 Posts
And I tend to lean libertarian in the sense that if what I do doesn't affect you, I should be able to do what I want. But there's a big difference between libertarian-live-off-the-land-with-a-shotgun and libertarian-live-in-a-town-with-people-and-services. In the latter case, you know, you have to do your part to the best of your ability. Pay taxes, keep your lawn reasonably neat, and get vaccinated. :shrug

And yes, I get that keeping your lawn neat is not an invasive medical procedure and therefore a terrible, terrible analogy, but it's all part of the social contract.
Yes this is a terrible terrible analogy, like many of the analogies used to talk about social contracts and vaccination.

And this is why.

Should a person be compelled to comply with a rule/law/mandate if there is risk to themselves to be in compliance?

Is someone at risk from physical injury (possibly lifelong) by paying their taxes? Keeping their lawn reasonably neat?

Owning a home is a choice. People who do not want to do yard work can buy a condo or hire someone else to do the yard work.

People who do not want to file their taxes can hire an accountant.

There is no guarantee that any vaccinated person will not get the disease they were vaccinated for and there is no guarantee they won't be injured by the vaccine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
A choice is just that, a choice. yes it is still a choice if the procedure was out of reach for most people. In reality, that is the current state of affairs, abortion is out of reach for most people (it is not covered by insurance, can be very expensive, and there are very few providers, and transportation costs add up fast when you have to make 3+ trips to a clinic that is hundreds of miles away and have no vacation time). It is still considered a choice.

Not everyone can make every choice they want to make, because choices have consequences. When you make one choice, it may limit future choices in other areas. This is true of almost every choice we make.

Also, the choice to not vaccinate doesn't cost twice the yearly income of an individual. Not vaccinating is free that choice is within everyone reach. Choosing private education may be out of reach, etc. But that is a second choice that may be more or less desirable based on the choice not to vaccinate.

Choices have consequences. Doesn't mean they aren't choices. That is as clear as I can be.
Thanks for answering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
I think that's an apples-to-oranges comparison, to be honest, because when it comes to that abortion, the effect on everyone else doesn't have to be considered.
I think this is moot to the question of whether it is a choice if it is untenable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: applejuice
1 - 20 of 72 Posts
Top