EN
FR
by Claire Chretien,
The baby inside a pregnant woman’s body is not part of her body.
Anyone who believes in the right to bodily autonomy — anyone who believes the slogan “my body, my choice” — ought to be against abortion and against forcible vaccination.
The simple reason that “my body, my choice” does not work as an argument for abortion is because the unborn child being aborted is not part of his mother’s body. A child in the womb is a whole, distinct, living human being, with his own DNA, heartbeat, organs, and unique blood type. Your right to “reproductive freedom” does not include a right to violently dismember and destroy the body of your offspring.
The tiny child in the womb has a right to bodily autonomy, to not have his body violated and his arms and legs twisted off and his skull crushed.
His mother’s right to bodily autonomy ends when another person’s life is at stake.
Bodily autonomy never includes the right to kill an innocent person.
What about vaccines? Don’t we have an obligation to protect each other? Isn’t refusing to be vaccinated putting other people at risk?
“Take your medicine so I don’t get sick” is simply not how vaccines are supposed to work. Vaccines are supposed to protect the people who receive them, not the people around them. A person who has been vaccinated for a disease is supposed to have immunity from that disease. If vaccines work the way they are supposed to, a person who has received a vaccine for a disease can enter a room of people who have that disease and not contract it.
An injection that is billed as a vaccine but does not immunize a recipient from the disease and only lessens his symptoms is not a vaccine; it’s a prophylactic therapeutic. And, as evidenced by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warnings and reports submitted to the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), not a risk-free one.
Our Pfizer juice-pushing world leaders even admit this. They constantly bleat about how the best way to protect oneself from COVID-19 is to be vaccinated with as many doses as available (right now in the U.S., for everyone over 18 that number is three, but many believe it’s likely to go up) because vaccination supposedly reduces the chances of severe disease or hospitalization.
But if we follow their premise that COVID shots don’t stop the spread of the disease, and only reduce symptoms, at best, shouldn’t people be allowed to decide how “severe” of an infection they’re willing to personally risk?
“Take your vaccine so mine will work” is about as logical as saying “bundle up so I don’t get cold” or “eat your food so I don’t stay hungry.”
What about the argument that people should take vaccines so that those who can’t have the vaccines are protected?
The same people making that argument are usually the ones who argue that everyone should be COVID-jabbed and that there isn’t ever really a medical reason why someone couldn’t be vaccinated — even the immunocompromised, pregnant women, or those with contraindications to vaccines. In the U.S., health officials recommend a fourth vaccine dose for the immunocompromised. Medical exemptions written by doctors are regularly rejected by vaccine-mandating employers and universities.
There is also no precept in medical ethics that obliges someone to undergo a risky procedure or intervention to provide a possible health benefit to another person. Is someone who can’t swim obligated to try to save someone drowning in the middle of the lake, or send his children who can’t swim into the lake to try to make a rescue?
Even in pregnancy, which is a normal physiological process, a mother is not obligated to forfeit her own life to save her baby. The principle of double-effect says a surgery intended to save her life but resulting in the foreseen unintended death of her unborn child is morally okay. St. Gianna is recognized as a saint precisely because of her heroic rejection of cancer treatment that might have harmed her unborn child.
And the relationship between a mother and her unborn child is very different from the relationship a “vaccine-hesitant” person has to a hypothetical stranger who the CDC says can’t be vaccinated (and again, I would love for the pro-forced vaccine crowd to actually admit there are some people who have medical contraindications to the coronavirus vaccines).
Forced vaccines are medical rape
No one should be forced to insert something into his body — particularly something that doesn’t even stop the spread of disease and that could injure or kill him. Forced vaccines are medical rape, and if they are normalized under the false pretense of “protecting other people” they will open the door to a host of forced procedures and disgusting injustices.
Writing for Caldron Pool, Bill Muehlenberg argued:
People need to wake up to what is at stake here. This is a war against freedom and choice, and it is about how far the all-powerful State can flex its muscles and keep people under its iron fist. This IS a new fight for freedom…
And the mandatory medical measures, not least of which, forcing folks to get the jab whether they want to or not, are something we all must resist. As I have said often before, if the State can force you to take a vaccine against your will, they can make you do anything: to be sterilised; to be forced to give up an organ on demand; to be rounded up in internment camps; to be euthanised; and so on. There will be no end to the coercion and enforced subservience to Big Brother.
As to the issue of mandatory jabs, the vital importance of informed voluntary consent is absolutely essential here. But few seem to get it. Way too many brainless wonders will drone on and on about how there is no compulsion here – it is all your own choice. Yeah right.
When the State – and most businesses – can make you lose your job, your livelihood, your ability to feed your family, and strip you of your basic human rights to travel, to shop, to go to school, to leave your own state or country unless you get the two, three or who knows how many jabs, then you are NOT free to choose – you are being coerced, pure and simple.
If an employer or the government can mandate a person take certain drugs, who is to say the employer or government can’t mandate that person have an abortion, or be sterilized, or give up his extra kidney?
Ironically, many on the left today argue that “my body, my choice” means the right to dismember someone else’s body and stop his or her little heart from beating, but not the right of an individual to decline a prophylactic medical intervention.
You have the right to your body. As Christians, we ultimately believe our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, and belong to God. But something everyone of good will can reasonably agree on is that our bodies do not belong to the state.
“My body, my choice” should mean no human’s autonomy is violated — no matter how small that human is or what “variant” of the coronavirus society is facing.
Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com
Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website
Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.
"There is also no precept in medical ethics that obliges someone to undergo a risky procedure or intervention to provide a possible health benefit to another person. Is someone who can’t swim obligated to try to save someone drowning in the middle of the lake, or send his children who can’t swim into the lake to try to make a rescue?"
Therefore, there's no ethical reason to oblige a woman to undergo a dramatic physically altering pregnancy to provide a possible benefit to a fetus. Is someone who is capable of surviving without the body of another obligated to use their body, to provide the required resources for another human being to obtain or sustain their life? For no other reason than that they were born capable of conceiving and fostering another life inside their body? The only reason we demand women give birth to babies conceived in their own womb is because they are, entirely by chance, born with a uterus. No other. None.
There is no medically ethical reason to demand women, or ANY human, risk entirely physically altering changes for any reason. We need to stop pretending that pregnancy causes NO permanent changes to women's bodies. Women who experience pregnancy and return to their pre-pregnancy state physically are the exception and not the rule. It is not selfish to consider the ramifications of childbirth! Permanent abdominal separation, lax pelvic muscles, excess abdominal skin, wrinkly stretch marks, loss of sexual function, bathroom bladder and bowel issues, back pain, breast changes, etc. There is absolutely nothing more life altering on every level and in no other permanent way than pregnancy. Pregnancy is a labor of love because women choose to place their bodies in service to another. When you take that choice and mandate it based on nothing other than biological capability, you cause women to risk permanent and dramatic changes to their bodies without any justification. Aside from all risks on her life defined as breathing air and having a heart beat. What about her experience of pregnancy and motherhood, which are in fact part of her life? What about her future intimate life experiences? What about her future choices irrevocably altered by denying choice?
I'm not saying a fetus isn't a person from conception and implantation. I'm saying a fetus has no right to the same rights as a fully realized woman until it can live without her body for support. Until then, it IS part of her. Pregnancy is not invasion by a foreign body. The two are one until both are able to be separated and survive.
Forced vaccines are medical rape
No one should be forced to insert something into his body — particularly something that doesn’t even stop the spread of disease and that could injure or kill him. Forced vaccines are medical rape, and if they are normalized under the false pretense of “protecting other people” they will open the door to a host of forced procedures and disgusting injustices.
Forced vaccines are medical rape? I'm sorry– I have BEEN raped, and it is nothing like taking a vaccine. It is NOTHING like going to the health department and receiving the vaccines necessary for school was. Not even a little bit. It's insulting to read someone call vaccine mandates medical rape. It completely minimizes the actual violence and experience of rape. I cannot fathom believing we cannot be compelled to take a vaccine in our bodies, but we can be compelled to allow another PERSON to use our body to obtain or sustain their life.
By your own argument, if we can be compelled to remain pregnant, whose to say we can't be forced to BECOME pregnant? Whose to say we can't mandate chemical castration of men until marriage? I mean the state could argue it has a compelling interest in men's reproductive bodies. After all, it would dramatically reduce if not eliminate: unwanted pregnancy, abortion need, AND reduce rape statistics.
Body autonomy is about choice TO, AND choice NOT to. If you don't believe abortion is right, you deserve the right to choose not to have one. But you don't make that choice for others the same as they shouldn't make that choice for you. When life begins is not a scientific certainty, it's a moral question. Not everyone shares the same moral.
I dont know where or why people keep stating forced or mandatory vaccines . Its an offer. Fear mongering is why majority have taken jabs. Perhaps if we the 'profane' were given a decent education where true morals values ethics are taught but that doesnt suit the psychopaths because then people have the capacity to think and not be exploited. Its a wicked mind behind this evil entrapment. Its not accidental its by intelligent design. For or against homosaipens id probably go with the latter. Some get through life relatively unscathed more do not…its set up so we suffer!
Exactly – "something everyone of good will can reasonably agree on is that our bodies do not belong to the state."
It is true that in pregnancy the fetus' body is separate however it is dependent upon mother. There is only one way to see this also, in the same way as for vaccines and people simply have to lump it – that the mother has the say over that fetus and nobody else. It is in her conscience what she does with it, not for others to say. This is the only way to deal with the situation otherwise we will have pregnant women being jailed for miscarriages. It's simply something we have to accept and move on. But never must procedures be forced on humans who have been born.