4 ms·

Doesn't matter if it's life saving, right? If you argue based on bodily autonomy, and then support vaccine mandates, you're not consistent regardless of what yo

Doesn't matter if it's life saving, right? If you argue based on bodily autonomy, and then support vaccine mandates, you're not consistent regardless of what you think the vaccine does.

dbingham 4y ago
One doesn't have to take extreme positions to be consistent. In order to believe that someone should have bodily autonomy over continuing a pregnancy (something potentially life threatening, and definitely life altering) I don't have to believe that bodily autonomy is absolute. Vaccines are something that touch on community health. When one person chooses not to get vaccinated they are putting everyone around them at risk. At the most extreme extent, abortion affects the potential parents, the potential life, and their families. It's a different risk calculation. A woman pursuing an abortion is making life and death decisions for (at most - because not everyone believes the fetus is a life with rights) two people. Someone not getting a vaccine in a deadly pandemic is making decisions that impact life and death for their whole community.
- native_samples 4y ago
  COVID vaccines never affected other people because they don't reduce transmission, and even if they did, the point of a vaccine is individual protection. If you think it works then it didn't matter what other people choose. And this holds true for many vaccines. Yet, again, odd silence from the pro-choice crowd. Clearly they don't believe in choice nor bodily autonomy. Abortion on the other hand does always affect other people, if you believe the fetus is a person. But most importantly, yes you do have to be consistent. If you can't be consistent because you feel it requires adopting extreme positions then you need to rethink your moral code, because clearly, you may find that your position isn't as morally clear as you thought.

Doesn't matter if it's life saving, right? If you argue based on bodily autonomy, and then support vaccine mandates, you're not consistent regardless of what you think the vaccine does.

dbingham 4y ago

One doesn't have to take extreme positions to be consistent. In order to believe that someone should have bodily autonomy over continuing a pregnancy (something potentially life threatening, and definitely life altering) I don't have to believe that bodily autonomy is absolute. Vaccines are something that touch on community health. When one person chooses not to get vaccinated they are putting everyone around them at risk. At the most extreme extent, abortion affects the potential parents, the potential life, and their families. It's a different risk calculation. A woman pursuing an abortion is making life and death decisions for (at most - because not everyone believes the fetus is a life with rights) two people. Someone not getting a vaccine in a deadly pandemic is making decisions that impact life and death for their whole community.

native_samples 4y ago
COVID vaccines never affected other people because they don't reduce transmission, and even if they did, the point of a vaccine is individual protection. If you think it works then it didn't matter what other people choose. And this holds true for many vaccines. Yet, again, odd silence from the pro-choice crowd. Clearly they don't believe in choice nor bodily autonomy. Abortion on the other hand does always affect other people, if you believe the fetus is a person. But most importantly, yes you do have to be consistent. If you can't be consistent because you feel it requires adopting extreme positions then you need to rethink your moral code, because clearly, you may find that your position isn't as morally clear as you thought.