Abortion vs Vaccine Mandates

what a topic to launch on

We live in an era of weird political fracture lines. This is not the bad take: everyone from Ottawa to Venus is pretty aware of the strange times we’re surviving through. This morning I woke up to see Twitter (both sides) freaking out about the Roe v Wade leak, and thought: this is it, this is my chance for a hot fuckin’ take.

If you’re pro-choice, you should be anti-vaxx mandate

Many of the blue check posts I see about this seem to be somewhat incoherent:

Andrea Horwath @AndreaHorwath

People are scared, sad and furious that the US may again deny women and non-binary folks their reproductive rights. We have a right to control our own bodies, and to make our own choices about our health. This is not negotiable. Not now, not ever. #ONpoli #RoeVWade

May 3rd 2022

154 Retweets866 Likes

Andrea Horwath @AndreaHorwath

By refusing to mandate vaccines, Doug Ford is catering to anti-vaxxers at the risk of our vulnerable loved ones. I’m grateful to the vast majority of health workers who have already got their shots. They deserve a government working to protect them & their patients. #onpoli

November 3rd 2021

164 Retweets877 Likes

Andrea Horwath @AndreaHorwath

I want kids back in class Monday. But I know parents and teachers are worried, and I know we can make it safer. We need to act now. We need to add the COVID vaccine to the list of required vaccines in schools and mandate it for all teachers and education workers. #onpoli #onted

January 14th 2022

230 Retweets1,173 Likes

(In case you don’t closely follow Ontario politics (and whyever not?) Andrea Horwath is the leader of the provincial New Democratic Party, ostensibly the party of the working class blue collar and really the party of Toronto.)

But, bear with me here. If one has a right to bodily autonomy in the case of abortions, what plausible argument is there to be against bodily autonomy in the case of vaccines?

The argument I’ve heard most frequently is that we have a moral obligation to be vaccinated against COVID, to “slow the spread,” “protect others,” et al. Except the COVID vaccine may not stop transmission (also here). The moral argument falls apart if the vaccine doesn’t stop transmissions: all that’s left is the personal safety argument, ie, you ought to be vaccinated so you won’t go to the hospital. Which is all well and good… but not a reason for a mandate (after all, heart disease kills about 650,000 Americans every year, but we mandate nothing to prevent heart disease hospitalization!)

Of course, as I’ll address in a moment—this does not mean there is no moral argument in favor of getting vaccinated. A slight reduction in transmission will be beneficial for society; a reduction in death risks is also beneficial for society (not even mentioning, beneficial to those who love you and rely on you!) All I mean to say is, there is no logical reason for mandates if the vaccine does not stop transmission (there is also no logical reason for vaccine passports). Simply put, a moral obligation ought not equal a legal obligation. We will all have to face our God in the end (and if you don’t believe that, you have even less reason to argue in favour of moralistic-legalistic arguments!)

Conversely, many people who are anti mandate (on the grounds of bodily autonomy) are, strangely, also anti-choice when it comes to abortion. My understanding of this argument boils down to two interconnected factors:

1. There are two bodies involved, so therefore, there is no ‘bodily autonomy’ argument to be made which will not impact both bodies

2. Killing a fetus is murder; murder is against God’s moral law; therefore abortion is against God’s moral law

I’ll address these both separately.

Two Bodies

“Person A (mother) should not be allowed to make end-of-life decisions for Person B (fetus), because Person B has their own bodily rights.” I hope I’m not misrepresenting this argument; if I am, correct me.

Although it may be true that Person B has their own bodily autonomy rights in theory, Person B does not have bodily autonomy because the fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. I will be the first to admit that this argument falls apart when viability is reached circa 24 weeks; my argument does not support abortion after this date. However, prior to fetal viability, the fetus cannot have bodily autonomy.

God’s moral law

This is a trickier argument. You can only argue that killing a fetus is murder if you accept that a fetus is alive and human in a meaningful sense, and many do not (we do not call, for instance, the slaughter of cows murder, unless you’re PETA). If you do believe that a fetus is human, you will not wish to kill it. However—in the spirit of that same bodily autonomy I so wholeheartedly support—oughtn’t we to accept other’s viewpoints?

If someone has a bona fide belief that a fetus is not human, and that same fetus is not yet viable, then (under my worldview) they ought to be able to end the pregnancy—the same way we kill cows. Many of you will detest this idea. My point is not that this is morally correct, but that it is logically supported under the merits of bodily autonomy.

“But wait,” I hear someone say. “We don’t allow murder of humans under the banner of bodily autonomy.”

Of course not: because humans are humans.

“But wait,” I hear the same voice call out. “You’ve skipped over the most important part: God’s Moral Law.”

In short:

1. If we accept freedom of speech, choice, autonomy, et al, we must accept that not all people will believe the same things we do (ie, God’s Moral Laws), and;

2. If God’s Moral Laws are true, then God will eventually judge us all, whether we particularly believe in Him or not

As CS Lewis put it:

The freedom of a creature must mean freedom to choose: and choice implies the existence of things to choose between.

I will choose my way, you will choose yours, and God will judge us in the end, But if we do not have the freedom to choose, we will also not have the freedom to choose rightly.