CMV: if you're anti-vax because you believe in "my body my choice" then you must also be pro-choice.

CMV: if you're anti-vax because you believe in "my body my choice" then you must also be pro-choice.


Sorry, u/chadstark89 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20chadstark89&message=chadstark89%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/percty/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/chadstark89 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20chadstark89&message=chadstark89%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/percty/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


By the same logic if you are pro-choice then you have to be against mandatory vaccination. Your body your choice.


I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's necessarily true. The argument against abortions is mostly a moral or religious argument. Mandating vaccines is simply a safety issue. I don't think the anti-vaxxers who claim my body my choice are doing so in good faith anyways, unlike women who are fighting for their own personal reproductive rights. Your "right" to not get a vaccine is basically your right to infect and kill people with impunity. If vaccines were truly about your own personal safety and no one else's than I don't think there would be a problem here. If Covid for example wasn't contagious and you only had to get the vaccine to protect yourself then by all means don't get it and die just so long as you don't hurt others. Being pro-choice doesn't hurt anyone else. I think in this case you can't just switch the two around and say they must be two equally true statements. Women who are talking about their body their choice in relation to reproductive rights aren't talking about vaccines at all.


Pro-life people genuinely think a person is murdered during an abortion. And they aren’t objectively wrong cause there isn’t an objective answer. Biologically a human life IS ended, but I and other pro-choice people don’t think that life was a person, which is a question of philosophy instead of biology. The right not to get a vaccine could also be restated as the rate to control what substances are put into your own body, as opposed to your (obviously good faith /s) phrasing as the right to infect and kill people. I’m vaccinated for the record, but I oppose mandates. Edit: “murdered” should be “killed”


>Your "right" to not get a vaccine is basically your right to infect and kill people with impunity. Flu also kills 30k to 60k people in the US per year. No one argued that it wasn't someone's right to skip a flu shot. There's never been any talk about mandating flu vaccines because it's "simply a safety issue." There's no objective measure as to how deadly or contagious a virus must be to mandate vaccination. >Being pro-choice doesn't hurt anyone else. It does if you consider a fetus ~~baby~~ a person, which is fundamental to being pro-life.


The "flu" is a blanket statement for more than 100 different unique diseases. Covid-19 is 1. Covid-19 is more deadly than any singular flu strain and the comparison alone of 1 disease versus 100 should tell you how horrible it is. Taking your own 30-60k flue deaths a year, Covid-19 killed more people by itself than 10 years worth of flu deaths, assuming your maximum of 60k deaths a year. In other words, comparing covid-19 to the flu is useless, always has been useless and always will be useless when trying to play down the severity of this current pandemic or the importance of taking the vaccine.




u/Ancient_Boner_Forest – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Ancient_Boner_Forest&message=Ancient_Boner_Forest%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/percty/-/hb0ttny/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/Ancient_Boner_Forest – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Ancient_Boner_Forest&message=Ancient_Boner_Forest%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/percty/-/hb0ttny/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.


500k deaths per year VS 60k makes for a pretty strong argument as to why would would be more judgemental of those who skip the COVID vaccine vs the flu vaccine. Not to mention getting the flu doesn't usually decrease the gray matter in your brain or leave life long side effects. Nor is it as contagious.


That may be true, but I challenge you to find any posts from 5 years ago breathlessly arguing that people who don't get flu shots are *human scum who value their right to murder other people above a slight inconvenience.* What's the difference? More deaths? Ok, so someone who doesn't get a COVID vaccination is literally Hitler according to most of these posts. Fuck 'em, don't care if they die, die screaming you piece of rotten shit. That's the attitude right now. So then people who avoided flu shots before COVID should be like, at best, 1/10 of Hitler. That's still pretty bad! And yet I don't recall ever seeing this viewpoint before. I don't recall any rage-filled posts about people who didn't get flu vaccines. So either: the same people were holding logically consistent positions and indeed making these posts, and I just missed them, OR it's become a political issue even for people who claim to be objective beacons of pure science-based logic, all because they got a COVID shot. For the record I am vaccinated and very pro-vaccine but that doesn't mean I don't recognize these mental gymnastics people are doing to justify "no no no no this is tooootally different from anything ever in history therefore we should let unvaccinated people die in the streets cause fuck those murderous assholes." EDIT: I'm gonna stop responding to further posts because it's become pointless. I have no doubt if the flu killed 2.5M people a year globally instead of 600k the responses would still be "but you literally **can't** compare them they're **nothing** alike COVID kills more!" The point I made stands: people are clearly getting something out of fantasizing about exiling unvaccinated people that goes beyond a simple desire to save lives. Your desire to save lives is completely hollow if you don't think people that die from the flu are worth saving with another simple, easy vaccine.


hello, I have strongly held the belief that flu vaccines should be mandated and people who do not get them are selfish pieces of shit and posted about it on other social media accounts for many years. people who do not get vaccinated are not committing genocide killing 6-11million people, no. but can one person who doesn't get vaccinated ended up impacting drastically more lives than they might imagine? with delta each person sick infects 6-7 others those 6 each infect 6 and 36 are sick. those 36 each infect 6 and 216 are sick. those 216 each infect six and its 1292. there were individuals sick in Australia whose strain was genetically found to be cause by the Boston out break. Australians who had never been to North America and had not recently traveled. there are children of first responders who got covid and died. there are individuals who needed ICU beds for heart surgeries, and cancer surgeries, and gallstone surgeries, and strokes, and car accidents and there was no hospital beds available. there are teens who have been waiting years for organ transplants and the amount of organ transplants being done has dramatically dropped. there has been shortages of respiratory equipment some disabled people already relied on that would not have otherwise been unavailable. there has been increases in domestic violence and child abuse. typically in the US before the pandemic about 10% of Americans would think about suicide in their life. the CDC found that 10% of Americans seriously thought about suicide just last may- and a 1 in 4 college age/young adults. why are you prioritizing the lives of anti vaxxers over teens waiting for organ transplants, or stroke victims, or an individual hit by a drunk driver, or when a vet needs a simply surgery for gallstones- which he could be in and out with in hours?


You're twisting yourselves in circles because the one you're replying to is correct, and I think you realize it. Either a person is allowed to have a choice, or they are not. If you're pro-choice, you have to be anti-mandates to be consistent.


"my body my choice" is a bit of a tag line, but informed consent is at the core of medical ethics. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/informed-consent https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352998/ but your argument doesn't really work because people who are "pro-life" believe that a woman has typically already made the choices with her body that led her to become pregnant, and they primarily believe that the "baby" is a separate person with its own rights, and that you are murdering that child by aborting it. Frankly, it seems a bit disingenuous for you to turn the argument around because it's the pro-choice crowd (of which I'm one) who should be consistent with the "my body, my choice" framework. Do you believe in forced sterilization or mandatory abortion? there are certainly arguments that could be made in favor of them, and have been made by governments and scientists who have implemented these policies. Are you trying to argue in favor of mandatory or coerced vaccination for COVID-19? > Your choice has the potential to effect countless other people around you including death you have to prove likelihood, and you don't have the data to prove that. Just like we haven't been provided with the data to allow for informed consent. You probably think that the "effectiveness" of the vaccine, which has supposedly significantly waned in the time the vaccine has been publicaly available, refers to the likelihood of contracting and transmitting the virus, but that's due to misinformation by the press who only cites "misinformation" as anything critical of the vaccine or public health messaging and policy. The reality is that we don't have any consistent or reproucable data that shows the vaccination having any ability to slow transmission at all. So what is your argument then? That people don't have the right to do something that MIGHT make them less likely to visit a hospital? Do you believe fat people don't have the right to overeat? Do you believe that old people don't have the right to get old? What is the difference in likelihood for an unvaccinated person to get and transmit the virus, than a vaccinated person? You have no statistical way to answer that, so how can you possibly make the claim you did? And I think the real argument against the seemingly unified creeping authoritarianism is largely due to the lies, lack of accountability, and direct impact on people's economic and social livelihoods that appears to be moving towards a new era of control by an entity has has proven to be corrupt and dishonest. The argument is largely that it's less about the vaccine or the masks and more about the vaccine passport. And as much as you'd have called me a crazy conspiracy theorist when i pointed it out over a year ago, you have to see at this point that there's obvious truth to it.


The problem is that the distinction runs in the opposite direction. With abortion, you necessarily are killing another person, whereas with remaining unvaccinated you are only potentially slightly increasing the extremely low chance that someone will die. It’s kind of like with smoking: there is no way that smoking tobacco would be legal if there was a 100% chance the second-hand smoke would kill someone. Given that it is such a tiny chance, it isn’t considered “your fault” that someone else died (and how in the world would we even be able to tell?).


I disagree, as someone who is pro choice, a large factor is bodily autonomy. Nobody can or should tell you what to do with your own body. In my perspective this includes vaccinations. Why should something like that be government mandated? That's insane to me. I am however ok with things such as employers requiring vaccines because you at least have the option of weighing whether or not your desire to be employed outweighs your desire to be unvaccinated. If you don't want to, you can simply seek employment elsewhere. If you are vaccinated you have an EXTREMELY low chance of death via covid if you happen to catch it. The unvaccinated are risking themselves far more than anyone around them. That logic simply doesn't carry enough weight. Claiming to be pro choice, but then turn around and support government vaccination mandates is extremely hypocritical imo.


Mandating vaccines is **as much** a moral and ethical issue as abortion is. Much like abortion, it infringes upon the bodily autonomy of the person on whom the procedure is performed, especially if the person either does not consent to the procedure or consents under durress. This is beside the fact that vaccines do not prevent transmission. You aren't getting the vaccine to save other people because vaccinated or not, you will still infect others. You are getting the vaccine for yourself - to suppress your own symptoms. If you take all of the risks of the vaccine and only you stand to gain all of the benefits of the vaccine, the choice to take or not take the vaccine should be only your choice. Not some government body who thinks they know better than you. Hence 'my body my choice'.


I think what you're missing is not that people have a different belief than you on the same issue, but that they won't even agree on your *framing* of the issue.


> I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's necessarily true. lmao it works ***exactly*** the same way.




>Being pro-choice doesn't hurt anyone else I does hurt the fetus. Now, there are good arguments not to assert a high value to a young fetus, but if we get closer to birth, that thing becomes more and more like a baby. And unless you're considering not asserting a full human value to a baby, it's going to be tough not to also assert a high value to a third trimester fetus. But that's the thing: Late term abortion are already banned or at least heavily regulated everywhere. All Western societies have decided that the "my body, my choice" isn't a limitless right.


"only pro choice when reasons" That's pretty much the summary of your argument here.


No it's literally a two way window and here is how it works. I am pro vaccine and pro life. My view aligns because I believe the government has a bare minimum responsibility to protect it's citizens and the includes unborn children, my views are in line and mutual acceptable. If your view is flexible you're a hypocrite.


> Your "right" to not get a vaccine is basically your right to infect and kill people with impunity. You're assuming that an unvaccinated person will contract covid, pass it to someone else, and the recipient will die as a result. The reality is, the vast majority of cases aren't lethal. > If vaccines were truly about your own personal safety and no one else's than I don't think there would be a problem here. Here's the issue. If the vaccine is safe and effective (which I believe that it is), in which case it is about your own personal safety. If you are afraid of encountering an unvaccinated person and possibly contracting covid, get vaccinated. That's the entire argument. If people don't feel that the virus presents that big of a risk, then that's their risk to take, is it not?


>I see what you're saying, but I don't think that's necessarily true. The argument against abortions is mostly a moral or religious argument. Mandating vaccines is simply a safety issue. You basically destroyed your own argument here. If you think you can defend one without the other, then others can also defend one without the other and *as per your words*, you don't have to necessarily hold both views. "Your body, your choice, unless ****" is YOUR stance here. ***: It's as important as a safety issue ***: it's as important as religious/moral issue of killing a living being Choose one.


It's absolutely not just a safety issue. Even if the vaccine was 100% effective and could be proven as such, no government has the right to forcibly make you get an injection. That's crosses a line beyond bodily autonomy that many are extremely uncomfortable with and sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. If we can be forced to get injections, we don't really have any bodily autonomy to speak of.


I have a three year old toddler, but being a parent isn't something I'm interested in doing anymore. Can I legally choose to kill him? What about a one year old baby? Can I legally kill that? How about a six month old? Six weeks old? Six hours? I personally support abortion, but for people against abortion they view the unborn fetus the same way you probably view my three year old. To them, it is a person.


>The argument against abortions is mostly a moral or religious argument. Mandating vaccines is simply a safety issue. Not necessarily. Some pro life people don't only look at it as a moral argument, but a safety issue as well because they see it as protecting lives. Similar deal.


The argument against abortion is that abortion is murder every time, and that every abortion prevented is a human life saved and a legally sanctioned murder prevented. The belief that human life exists in the womb separately from the life of the mother does not require any supernatural belief or received wisdom (i.e.- it is not an inherently religious belief) Compare this to vaccines, where you need to administer more than 100 vaccines for each life you want to save. The cost of the vaccine is trivial compared to the lives saved, but if compelled vaccination is a violation of personal privacy, then it takes 100+ violations to save a life you wouldn't have otherwise saved. As a matter of scale, vaccination does not compare to banning abortion. Also, the Delta variant of COVID spreads very easily among fully vaccinated people. This is why "normal" COVID is virtually non-existent in the USA now but Delta makes up almost all COVID cases and is spreading like wildfire. Ot's why Delta has spread very easily in Iceland, which has a 95% vaccination rate for adults. So being vaccinated against COVID does almost nothing to protect others. The argument that anti-vaxx is inherently selfish or destructive to others is mostly non-applicable to COVID and the Delta variant. Also, and this is important, compelled vaccination is a "requirement to" and not a "requirement from." Being forced to do a thing is logivally a much greater violation than being forced not to do a thing, since both are a violation of will, but one of tgem requires the violated person to participate.


‘Your right to refuse a vaccine is your right to infect and kill people with impunity’??? Are you out of your mind? I have no words for the level of twisting and turning you are doing with words. You dont have the first tiny bit of understanding of your opposition. The fact you even make the comparison of ‘my body my choice’ in vaccine context to that of an abortion is just ridiculous given that pro-life people are considering the body of the child, hence an abortion being a violation of their right to informed consent. The exact opposite of what you are saying. Im almost convinced you are trolling by the level of misunderstanding you have of people with different opinions than yourself. ‘Being pro-choice doesnt hurt anyone else’ Saying this without even addressing the concern of pro-lifers regarding the murder of a child -wether you agree that this is murder, or even a child at all- comes across as either 101% ignorant of the discussion at hand, or just intentionally misrepresenting the points of the people you disagree with which is reprehensible.


>Being pro-choice doesn't hurt anyone else. Well to state the obvious retort from people who are not pro choice. Being pro choice does hurt others, it hurts the baby.... by killing it. You are using your personal view of abortion, which is, that it doesn't hurt anyone else, to counter anti covid people's arguments "My body my choice" arguing that not getting the vaccine will hurt other people. It isn't a good argument because you misrepresent the others arguments. Additionally mandating vaccines is absolutely a moral argument. The argument being - Is it moral to force people to partake in something that infringes on their bodily autonomy? Or written in another way. - Should the government have the right to put things in your body without your consent, if it is deemed better for the majority? That is a moral argument. I feel like I should add i am both pro choice and fully vaccinated.


Does not matter. You either think that goverment should be able to control your body or not. Mandatory vaccination is example of goverment control over your body. No matter the reason. Same with anti abortion. In that case they control hour body to protect child body. And it's not just moral issue. Your freedom ends when another person freedom begins. So technically while you can decide about your body - you should not decide if kid live or die. But all that is simply faulty logic. Because at the end of they day vaccines works and help everyone. You affect too many people so allowing people to not take vaccine is out of the question. While abortion affect you and your child. Area of influence is much smaller and there is room to debate. We already place mother life above kid life. You can get abortion of kid endganger the mother.


>If vaccines were truly about your own personal safety and no one else's than I don't think there would be a problem here. You need to read around. From day one the big 3 said it doesn't stop you catching or spreading it. Case closed.


> The argument against abortions is mostly a moral or religious argument. You contradicted yourself instantly. Reread the title of your post.


> Being pro-choice doesn't hurt anyone else As long as you dehumanise the foetus and dismiss its body autonomy. Also, although I am not vaccinated I am actively healthy with a robust immune system and am socially isolating so I am not likely to get Covid and if I do I am more likely to fight it off and not being obese am less likely to get ill and be a viral shedder. By contrast, somebody who treats their health with contempt and exposes themselves to risk vastly increases their chance of catching Covid, getting ill, and being a viral shedder. Furthermore, those unhealthy people suffer from heart disease which places enormous strain on health services which then affects other people - health services have a massive backlog now after Covid, but not entirely because of Covid. So I am not anti-vaccinations per se, but I am not having the Covid vaccination, just as I never have the flu jab, because it is my choice to do so and for the same reason I oppose the abortion moral argument because I believe that to have one removes the body autonomy of the foetus, so it is an entirely consistent moral position.


>Your "right" to not get a vaccine is basically your right to infect and kill people with impunity. I think that is a bit simplistic and childish. It's completely possible that people don't trust the long term effects of putting something in their body. It could be that they already had COVID and have the antibodies. It also could just be that they don't want to be told they have to do something with their bodies. For the record,I am vaccinated and I support everyone's decision to do what is best for their situation. However,I will always oppose vaccination mandates.


> I keep hearing from the anti-vax camp "my body my choice", which sounds an awful lot like something we've been hearing from the pro-choice movement for a long time. I think that if you believe in that statement as an argument for being anti-vaccination that you have to also be pro-choice. You're getting whooshed here. It's not that the anti-vaxxers didn't realize that "my body my choice" is the rally cry of pro-choicers. They intentionally chose the same phrase to use it ironically / as a catch-22.


haha the mental gymnastics. Dude you got trapped by your analogy and that's it The reason is simple : "my body my choice" is not enough of an argument in both cases. Meaning it can't support *alone* a antivax/pro-abortion stance. It's a piece of a larger reasoning, which must also reflect on the limits of this right. If you push "my body my choice" to an extreme you can justify absurd things


You saying “I don’t think that’s necessarily true.” Is literally an opinion. I’m not anti vax, but this is the problem with the Liberalism ideology. Every person is afforded their personal liberties, but eventually that’s just not possible. It’s far too optimistic and not based on reality.




u/GermanAntiGurerilla – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20GermanAntiGurerilla&message=GermanAntiGurerilla%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/percty/-/hb0lrdo/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). Sorry, u/GermanAntiGurerilla – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20GermanAntiGurerilla&message=GermanAntiGurerilla%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/percty/-/hb0lrdo/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.


Yeah no apparantly now scientists are saying that vaccines are not lowering chance of getting infected. It can be very much be seen in the covid statistics now since a lot of people have over 60%-70% of people vaccinated but the numbers of sick people are still increasing. Many if which are vaccinated. Right now they are saying that covid vaccine just lovers chance of the sickness being severe.


You are aware even if you have the vaccine that you can still spread it right? It’s spread exactly the same if you are vaccinated or not.


Are women who are advocates for abortion also fighting for other issues related to autonomy and individual freedom or do they also pick and choose based on agreeing with something when it suits them and disagreeing over a general principle when applied to a different situation? Your initial point was that anti vaxxers are inconsistent as you suggest many of them would also support pro life, but by the same logic, pro choice advocates would also be inconsistent which is why you argue that the two things are not truly comparable as one could result in someone being harmed because of another's body autonomy. So the moment someone else's body autonomy harms another is when you believe that the freedom should no longer existed. (Side note, I would assume that a pro lifer would argue that as they tend to believe life begins at conception they are also trying to ensure one person's right to autonomy over their own body doesn't impinge or harm another person's, however, for the sake or argument let's say pro choice and anti vaxxers are different because someone can be harmed because of another's freedom) Even allowing for the idea of anti vaxxers and pro choice being unequal because one potentially harms another, I would be confident that other examples where body autonomy only directly affects the individual who wants the freedom would be opposed by most pro choice advocates. I doubt most would agree with things like any legal adult being able to take whatever drugs they want and legalizing all drugs or anybody, including very young adults like 16-21 year old (depending on the age someone is considered an adult legally) being able to kill themselves with the help of doctors because they want to die but want to die in the most painless way possible and not shoot or hang themselves etc. I doubt most pro choice advocates would even be in favour of not needing to wear a seatbelt or crash helmet when driving When something is convenient and aligns with what they believe then they are for body autonomy, when the same basic issue goes against what would be good for them personally then they are critical. That goes for many anti vaxxers and pro choice supporters on both sides (not everyone obviously as there will be some small amount of people who are consistent with the idea of body autonomy for everything). Most people are hypocritical and have no consistency in their beliefs as, despite their claims, most don't really think about their beliefs or attempt to examine if they stand up to scrutiny when applied by someone with whom they disagree. They basically think "it's different for me because...well,. because it's me" The point is that most people are inconsistent with their idea of "my body my choice" They want it when it suits them. it's also wrong to think we have autonomy over our bodies legally and we probably never have had on many issues. The government has legislated against being able to do whatever you want with your own body for many years. Many pro choice and anti vaxxers will both be inconsistent anyway and don't want the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies as they're so selective in when it should be allowed On a different note, I don't really understand why if someone has had both jabs then it matters if someone else has or not. Either the vaccines work or they don't. Is the reason for pressuring people to take the vaccine for the people who can't for whatever reason have the vaccine themselves,? Presumably this is a small number so if people were forced to have the vaccine, are those lives worth losing more personal freedoms. I don't see how legally an unvaccinated person would be reasonable for someone else's life anyway. People are free to isolate themselves for ever if they are concerned about their health. In terms of responsibility haven't the drug companies reached an agreement with many governments around the world that they can't be sued for any side effects someone experiences? If there's no legal recourse for a person if their life is ruined by the vaccine then why should they be compelled to take it? They have a responsibility to look after their own interests before needing to care about others. If people have a problem with anti vaxxers then they need to pressure governments so legal action can be taken against the vaccine makers I think the overall argument is going to be redundant anyway as Vaccines also won't be mandated. If world governments are smart (at least in terms of knowing how to manipulate public perception), they won't force anybody to get the vaccine. What they will instead do is make it so it's expensive and inconvenient to not have the vaccine. Want to travel? You'll be forced to stay in quarantine hotels and pay for tests each time you leave the country. Want to attend events? There's ticket prices for those with and without the vaccine. Those with it don't have to queue as long to get in. Again, it's more expensive if you don't have the vaccine as you'll need to be tested and pay for that. Also the views will be the worst possible. All non vaccinated will have to be put in one area away from everyone else. If your friends/family has the vaccine then you cant attend the event with them. Like a smoking area outside, there will be much smaller areas where non vaccinated people can meet. I'm very confident that something this is all that will need to happen to ensure most people eventually consent to having the vaccine and nothing needs to be forced or legally mandated. Make things more expensive and inconvenient for the anti vaxxers and that alone will be enough to get them to do it. You don't need much more than that in my opinion.


>Mandating vaccines is simply a safety issue. I don't think the anti-vaxxers who claim my body my choice are doing so in good faith anyways, unlike women who are fighting for their own personal reproductive rights. There is nothing good faith about a maxim like this. My body my choice is not at all a health only tenet in abortion. It might have started out that way. My body my choice is also granted free social reign in drug addiction, obesity, eating bat soup, testing experimental drugs and so on. Bodily autonomy has become a key component of autonomy in the western world. Even for polio, chicken pox and small pox IF YOU HAD NATURAL IMMUNITY THRLE VACCINE WAS NOT MANDATED. Not every abortionbis a health matter critical to the mothers health and safety. Some just don't want kids....just like some dont want vaccines. I think this is more than ok. Sick and weak should stay at home. Naturally immune and those not fearf of dying should counting that 10 thousand year old tradition of humanity and culture instead of being kept at home


Here is how I see the argument. When people say « my body, my choice » in regards to Covid, they are not saying « I believe in this doctrine and I think it applies everywhere, whether for abortions or vaccines », but really they are saying: « if YOU indeed believe in 'my body my choice' then YOU are being inconsistent for letting that principle fly out the window when it comes to vaccines. » The argument is in fact underlining the weakness of your principles, from the POV of the one who says it, and not the ideology of the one who says it. It’s not inconsistent, because the only thing this argument says is that you are not abiding by your principles. Usually they will say : « if you aren’t for this doctrine in medecine, why are you for it when it comes to abortions, are you not being inconsistent? » It’s a gotcha line, for sure, but I find it to be a really solid one, because it forces you to explain the distinction between the two cases (both medical to add to the similarities), which is when you lose your ground.


you got owned. funny how the logic fits when it makes your opposition take your side, but when flipped around, you say they don't even mean it in good faith. Also, how about fathers/men. they have ZERO choice in abortions. so two people can have a baby and the man can say, i really want to have this baby and the woman can say, i don't care what you feel even though its your sperm and i will kill this fetus. So in a lot of ways Abortion isn't just about females reproductive rights and autonomy, but also the fathers, which in present society means fuck all. of course in instances of rape or assault, the man should have no choice in the matter, but if you're truly free choice, you should believe abortions should only be allowed when BOTH parents agree it is the correct option, although something is telling me you'll say its completely up to the women because its her body. how many men have suffered as a result of this, knowing a child they brought into the world and want is then killed.


Some false misconception here. The the ability to transmit viruses like COVID-19 may still occur at a lower rate even after getting your jab. People are still carriers. This is a reality for people who don’t have a good immune response to vaccines. Realistically, all you are doing is decreasing the rate to spread the virus via symptons that increase the rate of transmission i.e. coughing, sneezing, bodily fluid exchange etc. *"Your "right" to not get a vaccine is basically your right to infect and kill people with impunity."* Please understand that everyone is stil at risk and always will be. There is no magical medicine that gives full immunity. Only provides the utility to control risk. You exercise your right to infect people by thinking you can just go back to normal after you've had the vaccine. *"Being pro-choice doesn't hurt anyone else"* Sad to read that statement. Being ingorant hurts everyone.


All vaccines are for contagious diseases, that’s why vaccines are created in the first place. And I think you don’t understand the right wing’s position on abortion. They consider the fetus to be a living thing already, so they don’t agree with abortion. That’s why they don’t consider it a contradiction to say pro-choice for vaccines, but no choice for abortion. They also don’t believe in basic quality of life for people, or a social security net in more political terms, so they don’t care what happens to they baby after it’s born. I’m liberal and probably share similar points of view as you, but you should at least understand what you’re fighting


>The argument against abortions is mostly a moral or religious argument Isn't a vaccine mandate also based on morality? ​ >If Covid for example wasn't contagious and you only had to get the vaccine to protect yourself This isn't true scientifically, but is basically is in practice. The only person you are harming is yourself. Anyone who wants to be protected can get vaccinated and pretty assured that the unvaccinated won't hurt them. ​ >Being pro-choice doesn't hurt anyone else Even though you may disagree, can you at least see the pro-lifers point of view here, which is that abortion does directly hurt someone else?


See, you make an excellent summary of why the reverse isn't true - now it should be easier to see why your original post isn't, either. As you said yourself, the arguments are entirely different - abortion is often about morality arguments and bodily autonomy, while vaccines are about safety vs "personal freedoms". And, as you say, the "my body my choice" is not good faith by anti-vaxxers, it's purposefully parodied. Anti-vaxxers who say this aren't automatically pro-choicers because they're usually saying this in bad faith.


That’s a key part of it. The anti-vaxxers are arguing in bad faith. They do have somewhat of a point about hypocrisy, but i feel there is a bit of difference between the gov’t stopping you from doing something (abortion) vs forcing you to do something (vax mandate) when it comes to the definition of freedom. Let’s just say vax mandate is tyrannical and wrong. The morally right thing to do is still to get vaccinated if you care about yourself and those around you. You shouldn’t have to be forced to do it.


1. "My body, my choice" is used as a gotcha. It stands to reason that if you are a strong advocate for bodily autonomy, you would be both pro-choice and anti-mandatory vaccination, or hold neither position. However, because the argument is actually in bad faith, the anti-vax people generally using "my body, my choice" do not actually care about the implications for the abortion argument, they merely want to poison the phrase which has become popular as a phrase against them. See also: "Fake News", which used to mean "fabricated stories" but now means "unflattering news coverage for me or my political party." 2. As a counterexample, I could be against mandatory vaccination and against abortion if I believe life begins at conception, and that full rights of humans apply at the moment of conception. It does not follow that I must be pro-choice here, because I am now advocating for two people's rights. The intersection of the rights is at the heart of the abortion debate, and the pro-lifers believe abortion is murder -- the maximum harm you could do to someone.


People who are opposed to abortion aren't opposed to "my body, my choice," mentality. Go ahead, ask them. Tattoos, artistic scarification, diets, gym routines. They never have anything against people doing what they want with their body. Thing is, they don't see a foetus that happens to be within a person as part of their own body. They consider it to be it's own body. It is on the very principle of bodily autonomy that they resist procedures that do things to the foetus's body that the foetus did not consent to. "My body, my choice" is the principle that both sides of the abortion argument are in favour of. What is whose body is in dispute.


wouldn't this mean the inverse must also hold true: "if you're pro forced vaccination, you must also be pro-life?"


Minor challenge to your viewpoint: Evangelicals are not even close to the entirety of the pro-life movement. Also, your argument in the second paragraph is false equivalency. If you have an abortion, you have killed the fetus. There is no abortion process that saves the fetus' life. If you don't get vaccinated, you aren't directly taking a life. It would be more like, well, getting pregnant without being vaccinated against anything. This risks the life of the fetus, but does not directly kill the fetus. I am the foil to this view, pro-vax and pro-life, so I'm not exactly your target audience. However, this issue is much more complicated than equating the two. Abortion is a much weightier decision on an individual level than vaccination is. Also, as an aside, this phrasing is used to mock the pro-choice movement. It tries to turn anti-vax talk into pro-choice talk, so that "the opposition" can't argue with their logic. They don't actually have a problem with "my body, my choice." Pro-life people have a problem with abortion because it takes the life of another. It is no longer your body; it is the body of an innocent who has no say in their own death.


> If you have an abortion, you have killed the fetus. There is no abortion process that saves the fetus' life. If you don't get vaccinated, you aren't directly taking a life. this hasn't directly changed my mind, but i think it's a valid point. i acknowledged up front that i know it's not a 1:1 comparison, but I think wording it like this get's the point across. !delta


>Also, as an aside, this phrasing is used to mock the pro-choice movement. It tries to turn anti-vax talk into pro-choice talk, so that "the opposition" can't argue with their logic. They don't actually have a problem with "my body, my choice." Pro-life people have a problem with abortion because it takes the life of another. It is no longer your body; it is the body of an innocent who has no say in their own death. This demonstrates that you/they don't actually understand the argument of bodily autonomy. They might be trying to mock the phrase "my body, my choice" but it just demonstrates that they don't actually understand it. It doesn't matter if abortion results in death, what matters is that a person can choose to exercise their right to bodily autonomy and prevent the fetus/baby from acting as a parasite inside of them. The whole point is that Person B requires the body of Person A to survive. Whether B is a fetus, or a fully grown adult with a family, it doesn't matter. B has no right to demand that A provide their body so that B can survive. If A wants to sever the tie between them, even if that will guarantee the death of B, it is A's right to choose to do that. B can choose to try to do everything else to survive, but they can't force A to remain connected indefinitely against their will.


Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SmartAssGary ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SmartAssGary)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)


>If you have an abortion, you have killed the fetus. There is no abortion process that saves the fetus' life. I would like to arrange this point as it's not exactly true. In the case of partial birth abortions, doctors will abort one or more embryos in a multiple embryo pregnancy to save the lives of the others. In some cases this is because the mother's body cannot handle 3+ fetuses and placentas, but in other cases it is multiple fetuses on a single placenta which cannot sustain all of them. In such cases, an partial abortion of some embryos is literally the only option to save the lives of any and all of the embryos and even the mother as well That being said, this is more common in cases of IVF


Bad starting point. Every adult with a few exceptions is capable of getting the vaccine. A developing baby is not "your body" whether you consider it a life or potential human life it has done nothing to warrant the ending of its life. While someone other than you can get the vaccine the baby can't just un create itself. Not going to debate pro life vs pro choice, just pointing out the starting point of your position is flawed.


The point isn't the the fetus has done something to "diserve" to be terminated, the point is that the fetus doesn't have the right to use your body without your consent.




u/Clutchward – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Clutchward&message=Clutchward%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/percty/-/hazrzym/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


You're missing the fundamental point behind the pro-life position, which is that it *isn't* your body, the growing baby is an individual being with it's own unique DNA and everything. Your choice to abort would be depriving that developing human being of any and every choice they would ever make. Is your choice somehow more important than theirs? That aside, getting vaccinated is a choice that affects you and only you. If you choose not to get vaccinated, there's a *chance* (not a guarantee at all) that other people could get sick, and there's still only a very small chance that it would cause them lasting damage. >ultimately it's a choice you're making that has the potential to effect a lot of people who didn't have a choice in the matter. That's not true, actually. The risks associated with going outside are well known- meaning that you've knowingly accepted those risks. Everybody else DOES have a choice in the matter, which is that they can get vaccinated, or they can use contact-less services, or they can work from home. They're not forced to interact with me, and they're free to wear any amount of protective equipment if they do.


In the case of 'Pro life' people would argue that you are deliberately killing a foetus. But suffice to say, not being vaccinated means the risk of harm is very far removed and by no means a certainty. It certainly isnt directly killing 'someone'. If I walked out into the street and shot someone. Would you say this is equal to me not contributing money to a charity that would certainly save lives? This analogy works as one is a direct and deliberate action. The other is me choosing not to inconvenience myself, even though this will indirectly lead to someone dying. For the record, I'm just trying to show OP the flaw in their argument. I am actually pretty vehemently pro choice and would encourage anyone reading to get vaccinated.


Does the opposite apply? If someone says they are pro-choice because "my body my choice" should the same apply to vaccines? Should they hold others to that standard and be okay with people not getting vaccinated? They are different issues. I would assume people are saying it with the knowledge that pro-choice people say it. It's a purposeful statement. I'll also add that for the most part the pro choice movement has won. The anti vaxers who by your suggestion are probably mostly evangelicals are making the point that if we're going to play by those rules then the same should apply to vaccines.


I feel like people are conflating anti-vaxxers with those that are against mandatory vaccination. I am very much pro vaccine but I'm against telling other people what they can do with their bodies. I can't say I'm pro choice for abortions and not be that for vaccines just because the cause is different. I'd be a massive hypocrite. That would be 'your body your choice but only until a reason comes along that I agree with.'


Your argument is incredibly flawed. “Your choice has the potential to effect countless other people around you including death.” Abortion effects countless other people, and guarantees death for one. Additionally, here’s why your overall point is flawed. “My body my choice” applies to the person receiving the medical treatment or procedure. Abortion applies to the person receiving the procedure, as well as the person that has yet to be born. Those situations are not the same. To make them the same, the procedure to take the vaccine would have to guarantee the death of someone else.


>If you infect someone with something you're carrying and they die because of it I'd argue that you caused the death of that person. Nah, if a vaccinated person infects another person (could be a variant or something), did they cause the death of that person? I'd argue not, it was really whoever was responsible for letting the virus loose from Wuhan. The spreader was just part of an unfortunate chain of events that lead to the death of someone who caught the virus. You have to understand that the spread of the virus is completely unavoidable. We're not super humanly capable of containing it, therefore people will unfortunately die. No number of vaccines will make us completely immune to it (cause of variants)


I think the main difference is that abortion will *inherently* affect the fetus, whereas someone who is unvaccinated might not necessarily leave their home or do things without social distancing. Thus, abortion is definitely affecting the third party, but not being vaccinated does not. Like you said, "there's a chance" that you might not infect someone. With an abortion, though, it's pretty definite.


As someone who is personally *very* pro-choice, I still can't stand the "my body, my choice" argument, at least when it's levied against the religious crowd. It simply won't work. It's not attacking their "pro-life" stance where it stands, but from a position that is largely irrelevant to their beliefs. To more directly address your point, anti-vaxxers saying "my body, my choice" don't actually believe it: they're throwing the line back in the "liberals'" faces, intending to call them out for their hypocrisy and inconsistency with the bodily autonomy stance. To some extent, they're not wrong: vaccine mandates are an infringement on individual rights and bodily autonomy. For this same reason, the state cannot mandate people to give blood or donate organs. However, from their point of view, a fetus is to be protected, and its location is irrelevant. Let's start from their point of view: the act of heterosexual, p-in-v intercourse is inherently a procreative act, and that engaging in such is either intended to or runs the risk of creating a human life. A metaphor that I like to use is this: imagine that you want to walk through a critical care medical ward. When you walk through this ward for whatever reason, the people who are in critical care are allowed to try and catch you, and if they catch you, you have to participate in their recovery. You are tied to them until they die, you die, or they recover. You know this going in (although maybe the signage was bad, you were forced in there). If you can make it through the ward, you're not tied to anyone or anything, but if they catch you, well, that's what you signed up for. That life is sacred. By your presence in this ward, you have tacitly agreed to foster the life of whoever can catch you, and aborting that connection is to look them in the face and murder them. That's not an argument you win. That's not a position you change without attacking the underlying beliefs tied to it, that being that sex is for procreation, and if said procreation is successful, that life is sacred. No matter how you argue about unfeeling clumps of cells, bodily autonomy, quality of life of mother/child if the family isn't ready, etc, you're not talking to them where they stand. To bring it back, it *was* your body, and it *was* your choice to have sex with that body, and those choices led you to responsibility of what is now a *third* body, and you don't get to renege on that tacit agreement. Maaaaaaaybe you can gain some ground in the cases of rape or incest or health of the mother, but even that seems like a crapshoot these days.


I believe that preventing someone to put something in themselves isn't the same as forcing someone to put something in themselves. The latter is clearly worse to me.


"My body my choice" is one of those dopey propaganda things that ordinary people don't take so seriously. Even the most dedicated feminists - when they're watching their kids play in the street - they don't think to themselves, "well, it's their body, so it's their choice""; they grab the little brats by their elbows and yank them out of the road. >The only argument I've been able to come up with being against this line of thinking is that abortion effects a 3rd party (the fetus) where as a vaccination only effects the host. How about distrust/disrespect for authority? I'm personally vaxxed, but as the government and media grows increasingly fussy about vaccine hesitance, I grow increasingly sympathetic towards the so-called "anti-vax" crowd. In fact, I'm thinking about refusing the booster shot simply out of spite! I'm sure I'd be marked an "anti-vaxer", but that's just another one of those dopey propaganda things. >So, yeah, I don't really see how you can be anti-vax and not also pro-choice. Change my view! Nobody is really those things - those things are strawmen.


The basic argument prolifers make is that it is someone else's body inside of yours though. (Not opinionated on abortion, here) The hypocrisy is squarely on prochoice people being vehement about denying people's right to choice.


Agreed. I’m actually pro-vax but anti-compulsion. Better yet, I’m Pro-Choice as a rule, not just for abortion.


As time goes on, I'm getting more and more annoyed at the internet. To my right are idiots who make me ashamed to be human. The most extreme are racist, homophobic fools. To my left are people who act cruelly and are incapable of having a debate In good faith. People who are genuinely interested in other people's opinions and in expanding what they know about the opposite side of an argument are becoming rare. People would rather toe the party line and sign up for a team. Maybe it's because we're so sedentary, we aren't participating in team sports /s. It's possible to hold any number or beliefs, valid or contradictory, and whether they're correct or incorrect. Let me be clear that I've seen lies and bullshit on either side of the corona argument, and that's part of the problem. Im also **amazed** at the double-think im seeing. I'm pro-Vax, but I don't want anyone to be able to tell anyone what to put in their body (name me a government that is both benevolent and competent and ill consider changing my mind). I'm not anti or pro lockdown, I think their are valid arguments either side. A close friend of mine is a paramedic, and he's dealing with a lot of suicide and self-harm lately. A lot of friends of mine have lost businesses, and won't recover. This had ruined people's prospects of enjoying a better life than the one that was dictated to them. The wealth transfer that has happened is going to be damaging to **all of us**. We who are here arguing are the ones who will receive this bill. The tax payers, the hard workers, the ones who these systems are supposed to support. It's funny how quickly the same people who argued for the right to protest before are now celebrating fines and even police violence. It's funny how those who argue for bodily autonomy are now against it. It's funny how people who once would've protested the 1% are now helping to brush the wealth transfer under the rug. I'm not on either side of these arguments. I'm not heartless to anyone's suffering. I just hope when we get through through of this, we have a society left. One made of people who can be kind to each other despite our beliefs. If we keep alienating people bases on tribal bullshit, I dont see how we can make it. I also don't think we'll deserve to.


The problem is you're trying to dictate people's opinions using logical deduction. It makes sense as a way to analyse your worldview, but it's not necessarily going to convince people to change their mind. There's a big difference between proving an argument flawed, and convincing someone to stop believing the argument. Luckily this community is built to foster changing minds, but movements like anti vax aren't built on scrutinising ideas for a robust argument. It's about giving voice to people's emotional concerns, creating a community that is like minded, and spreading conspiracies. Don't get me wrong, I love poking holes in conspiracies. But the holes don't matter because conspiracies aren't born from logical reasoning. Maybe the base idea is a wild but possible hypothesis, but when people latch onto an idea and start building a mountain of bad evidence, it's not about rigorously supporting the idea, it's about making people's outlandish fears *feel* more legitimate for them and their community


Being unvaccinated means you have the *potential* to infect someone else. An abortion means there is a *certainty* that the life of the fetus will be ended and the person having the abortion knows it. That’s the whole point of an abortion. Someone who isn’t vaccinated isn’t actively trying to infect someone else. Potential and certainty are not the same thing, and intent matters in a moral discussion. Also, it’s not like unvaccinated people created the virus in the first place. Sure, unvaccinated people have the *opportunity* to get protected, but it’s not the same as someone who has an abortion and chooses to start the entire process of harming the 3rd party on their own. From a pro-life standpoint, there’s still a moral burden for the person getting an abortion because of the harm that it causes to a 3rd party compared with an unvaxxed person


Not if you believe abortion is murder. You cant just "choose" to kill a defenseless child in any morally just way, but you can "choose" not to wear a mask as the risk to others for not doing so is minimal and is a long way from certain death.


>affect There's the problem. Everything anyone does affects others. A person simply being alive affects every single other person and every single other thing in the entire universe. Affecting others is not the proper benchmark.


To be clear, the pro-choice position is not that abortions are good or not immoral. The pro-choice position is that women should be legally permitted to abort their pregnancy. That's why it's called pro-*choice* and not pro-*abortion*. So the "pro-choice" analogue of this view with respect to vaccination is the view that people should be legally permitted to refrain from being vaccinated. That being said, the obvious distinction between these two views is that (according to pro-lifers) the woman's pregnancy is the result of consensual sexual intercourse. Most pro-lifers don't believe the fetus has a right to the woman's body *merely* because it *needs* her body; rather, pro-lifers believe the fetus has a right to the woman's body because (and in cases such that) the woman performed a *voluntary* action (i.e. sexual intercourse) with the foreseeable outcome of causing a state of neediness for the fetus. According to pro-lifers, this makes her morally responsible for the fetus's life, which overrides any bodily autonomy rights that she might have. A pro-lifer can hold this view and also affirm that people should be legally permitted to refrain from being vaccinated, since no person has performed any action that makes them morally responsible for another party's life in a way that overrides their bodily autonomy rights. As a general rule, we should not violate one person's bodily autonomy for the sake of some other needy party. One exception to this general rule is when the person is morally responsible for the party being in a state of neediness (which is why pro-lifers believe that it should be illegal to abort pregnancies that result from voluntary intercourse). This exception does not apply to vaccination; no one has performed a voluntary action that caused a state of neediness for anyone else.


I'd bet that they're using the term "my body my choice" disingenuously, because the same argument was made by pro-choice advocates for so long. Nonetheless, I think it's more likely a difference in the value people place on certain authorities. For you, the CDC/WHO/medical establishment/etc. are the ultimate authority in this matter. Whereas for pro-life evangelicals, it's their religion's authority that supersedes all. ​ >Your choice has the potential to effect countless other people around you including death. Is exactly their reasoning as well, as they believe an unborn fetus is a living human being under the law, and that by aborting a fetus you're committing murder. As an aside, you could make the same argument about getting in a car and speeding (or really just driving faster than 10 MPH). COVID will likely never touch the body-count amassed by automobile accidents, but strangely people who get speeding tickets are not vilified to the same degree as anti-vaxxers (or anti-maskers for that matter), despite being far more likely to kill someone with their actions. What anti-vaxxers may not believe, however, is that COVID is as widespread or as dangerous as they're being told. Some of them may have even felt betrayed by medical authorities they were told they could trust. For example, opioids were created by pharmaceutical companies similar to those that created the vaccine, and prescribed by certified members of the medical establishment, who are now telling people to get vaccinated. Depending on what stat you read, the opioid epidemic has cost just as many if not more lives than COVID in the US (regardless it's probably in the six-figure range). It's easy to see how those people would be hesitant if not downright belligerent when it comes to vaccinations.


To /u/chadstark89, **your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.** * You are required to **demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind** (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). --- **Notice to all users:** 1. Per **Rule 1**, [**top-level comments must challenge OP's view.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) 2. Please **familiarize yourself with** [**our rules**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules) **and the** [**mod standards**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). We expect all users *and* mods to abide by these two policies at all times. 3. This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that **all** [**top-level comments**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1) **disagree with OP's view**, and that **all other comments** [**be relevant to the conversation**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5). 4. We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please **report any rule-breaking comments or posts.** 5. **All users must** [**be respectful**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2) **to one another.** If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) (*not PM*).


> The only argument I've been able to come up with being against this line of thinking is that abortion effects a 3rd party (the fetus) where as a vaccination only effects the host. This would be the correct assumption. > My argument would be that when you choose to not get vaccinated you're choice doesn't just effect you. Your choice has the potential to effect countless other people around you including death. However they are not inside your body nor are you making the conscience decision to pay someone to take their life.


So if you believe in Mandatory vaccination then you must be pro life


It comes down to acting on an intention. A person getting an abortion is making an active choice that affects a specific individual (for sake of argument), rather than behaving in "reasonable" ways that might lead to negative outcomes unintentionally. This is true with germs as well. For instance, you can be prosecuted for attempted murder, manslaughter, assault for knowingly being HIV positive, and not disclosing that to a person you're having unprotected sex with or sharing needles. ​ I would bet that if someone contracted COVID, knew they had COVID, and were proveably aware of the risks but walked into a retirement community and coughed on old people, they could probably be charged with reckless endangerment. I think the sticky part is that anti-vaxxers have government officials saying COVID is no more than a cold, so saying someone should reasonably know the dangers of COVID would be a tough case to make. Whereas the dangers of HIV are widely accepted by most people. ​ The same argument around ambiguity could be made for why abortion is legal. In saying "my body my choice," they are making an argument about when life begins. Even in the pro-choice community, I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find people not horrified by someone casually aborting a baby the day before it was due just because they wanted to. But because there's no way to actually say "Here's where life begins," they have to draw the line somewhere.\* But it's also why most states (if not all?) have laws that only allow late-term abortions if there isn't fetal viability or it would endanger the mother's life. ​ \*On a side note, this is talked about in philosophy a bit. The idea is who you are or the moral weight of your life can't be changed by location alone. Like if you were teleported into a prison cell or under water, the moral weight of your death wouldn't change. Your identity as a human whose life has value wouldn't change either. You'd just be you, somewhere else. At some point, the general societal consensus is that at some point a fetus that is yet-to-be-alive turns into a baby that is alive, and has the moral value of a human who happens to be inside of another human. Don't think that will ever be a line that's clearly defined, and there have been many cultures that didn't think the soul entered the body until some time after the baby was born.


I'm anti mandatory vax and pro choice. I guess I'm not trying to change your view. Here's an interesting anti vax argument that occured to me recently: First off, what they are calling a vaccine is a new therapeutic. They branded it as a vaccine to get people to accept it. The purpose was to keep people from congesting the hospitals. That's valid. It's not a vaccine like the smallpox vaccine that actually has a chance to eradicate smallpox. Covid 19 is out of the bag and it's not going back in. Now let's talk about mutations. The delta variant is a more contagious mutation that has dominated the covid spread. It's not much deadlier but it's far more contagious. If it killed faster it would slow the spread. SARS was very deadly and quickly left you bed ridden. That's why it died out. It killed it's hosts before it could spread. If there was an MRNA vaccine for SARS then people would have been less susceptible to the virus and would have more time to spread it. It may not have died out. If a more deadly mutation of Covid 19 occurs in a population that's recieved the MRNA vaccine it may spread further than it would naturally because it doesn't kill the host. Imagine a world where you must get a booster shot to survive a virus as common as influenza. That sounds nightmarish. We're accepting the risk of a more deadly mutation spreading for the certainty of overloaded hospitals. It's a shit sandwich no matter how you dress it. Wear a mask, social distance, and wash your hands. We need a better vaccine that can eradicate the virus in all it's hosts. That's a tall order considering it can survive in bats, cats, dogs, deer, and minks too. Good luck and stay safe.


I think you have to be more clear in your terms and what you consider to be "anti-vax". You could have someone who is informed about the vaccine (it is very safe, is effective, has minor side-effects, etc) but believes that no one should be forced (by government) to put anything in their body or consume any sort of substance, etc, even if it is "good". Conversely, you could have someone that believes that it ***is*** ok for the government to force people to take a medicine, undergo a procedure, etc, but they also believe some misinformation about the vaccine (they think it is harmful, ineffective, unsafe, etc). In this situation, I would consider the first person to not be "anti-vax" and the second person to be "anti-vax", but here the first person also has beliefs in line with "my body my choice" where the second person has the opposite. Personally, I believe that everyone who can get the vaccine should, but I do not think that the government should make choices for people about what they do or do not put in their body. Am I anti-vax? Does it make sense to qualify my stance as exactly the same to someone who is ignorantly fearful of the vaccine?


/u/chadstark89 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/peupgt/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_if_youre_antivax_because/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)




That’s some fine trolling there


While I agree with your argument, the reverse should also be true - if you’re pro-choice you should be anti-vax. I am curious, what is your personal stance on both issues?


I gotta correct you. Anti-vaccine mandate, ie my body my choice, is not the same as being anti-covid vax. You can get vaccinated and still be anti-vaccine mandate.


Counter point: If you're pro choice because you believe the government shouldn't control what a woman does with her body, then you must also support anti-vaxxers.


I was under the impression that the fetus is a 2nd body. If a person murders a pregnant person how many counts of murder are they charged with?


Depends on if you're considering the fetus a human being. If you are, then the fetus is being denied it's right to live


The babies body is not your body... Its not like you own your children like you own your body.


Nobody is trying to force you to get an abortion


Should our bodies not be considered sovereign?


Another persons body isn't your body.




Sorry, u/Sand831 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.comt/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Sand831&message=Sand831%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20commen\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/percty/-/hazuxt5/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).


> which sounds an awful lot like something we've been hearing from the pro-choice movement there is a reason why it sounds the same. it is because it was used that way. unfortunately for you, it was used ironically. it is a method of pointing out the cognitive dissonance on the left that really doesn't care about personal liberty, only selfish convenience at the cost of anyone or everyone else. since the people who are using that phrase only do so ironically, turning it back on them is empty. the real argument is that pro-life people see the aborted as murdered people who were innocent and helpless. until you can convince those people that the aborted were not deserving of life and not murdered, then you will never gain ground. > vaccinated you're choice doesn't just effect you. Your choice has the potential to effect countless other people around you including death. every choice you've ever made and will make can have unknown and unforeseen consequences including consequences that result in the early deaths of other people. driving a car is an especially deadly action when you consider all of the traffic fatalities. even accepting a job might displace another more desperate person who subsequently dies from suicide. neither you nor the employer should feel guilty about that suicide because your actions weren't innately and obviously deadly. people die from the flu every year and no one blames the spreaders for the deaths of those people, we see those deaths as natural causes because that is how nature works. now, if you knew that you were infected with coronavirus and then purposely infect old sick people, that would be different. in that case you know you are sick and you are using that sickness as an indiscriminate weapon against the defenseless. interestingly enough, if you study the evolution of infectious diseases and how those diseases change the evolution of species you would come to the conclusion as so many other geniuses have, that vaccinating against diseases that cannot be irradiated will not work in the long run. either the disease has to be irradiated all at once or the species and infectious disease have to evolve into a symbiotic or benign relationship. countermeasures that are not 99.999+ percent effective at eradicating the disease will only increase the amount of damage before the evolution eventually resolves the problem.


The OP clearly illustrates why most extreme liberals, woke millenials, and crazy evangelicals don't get it. I am anti-vax and I am not pro-choice...and it is my body my choice...Let me explain... These are personal decisions, which every individual has the right to make. They have been hijacked as political talking points that are used to gin up certain voting bases every 4 years. The issue is neither about anti-vax or abortion. It's about personal liberty and freedom, nowhere are the words anti-vax or abortion listed in any founding document of the United States of America. I stand here today fully committed to the idea that abortion is wrong. Further, I think forced vaccination is equally as disturbing. I do not hold a belief in any deity. I believe in capital punishment. There could be aliens. I feel like if snakes had legs they would be alligators and they would mess you up. I really like artichoke hearts. I hate syrup on my bacon, and any and all maple-flavored sausages. My conviction on the above statements are equally as mine as they can be and if you told me that I was your mortal enemy because of any of the preceding statements you are a moron. So now that you have read the above, let me explain why everything I just said is ok and back you down from the ledge. Normal, adult, intelligent humans know the following... We may not agree on our beliefs. We should expect that. I don't believe abortion is acceptable outside of certain bounds. I also have no earthly fucking right to tell someone they cannot have one. I don't want a vaccine, I have recovered from actual covid. You don't have the right to make me get one. At the end of the day that's the real issue. Everyone thinks whatever they believe in is right and everyone else should have to conform. They vote for morons who try to legislate opinion and trample your constitutional rights all day long. Whether you agree with these DC idiots or not, every stupid law they pass whittles away at your personal liberty. You guys got it all wrong. Start thinking about what you want out of life, not what you want to take away from everyone else. You would be a lot happier. And before you say its for the greater good. Think what you are asking, maybe we should abort all humans because of global warming, for the greater good. Use your brains not your emotions.


Here is a libertarian argument in favor of mandatory vaccines: One thing that I have been arguing to people is that legitimately, hospitals are starting to become overrun. My parents are in charge of running 2 different hospitals, as directors, and they have been giving me information around it. One interesting moral question is that almost 100% of their patients in critical state right now are unvaxinated, yet they are starting to run out of beds in critical care. So now we're left with the question: do we let the person who comes in from a car accident, or gun shot, die? Or do we let the unvaccinated person die? Ideally, neither obviously. You are also seeing a lot of specialized nurses being wasted and moved over to COVID treatment, so someone that may be specialized in neuro may not be available to take care of you, and you may end up dying because you got a nurse that isn't specialized in that. There is absolutely a spectrum of nursing specialization, and an unquantifiable cost of COVID is the deaths that come from those nurses not being present where they should be. There is more even in the libertarian camp to consider about making these moral choices. If you want my opinion, since the vaccine is widely available, I think we should treat the unvaccinated for COVID as lowest priority compared to other emergency patents, and cap the percentage of emergency beds unvaccinated COVID patients can take to 30%. I think there is a strong libertarian argument to be made about letting people live and die by their own personal decisions/agency. I'd rather an unvaccinated COVID patient die than someone who got into an auto accident, not because of any sort of disagreement about the vaccine, but because the unvaccinated made a choice and should live/die with the consequences. I actually think it's super reasonable to not get the vaccine, so again I am not arguing this because I think people should be punished or anything malicious. I just think it's more moral to treat other people first. The reason I think other libertarians out there should be concerned about vaccine status is because it legit affects your chances of living or dying if you get into a critical condition in the next few months. That sounds a lot like infringement to me.


There's just way too much to unpack here but what this entire thread boils down to is a bunch of apples to oranges debates. Certainly both these things are moral debates, both are debates about bodily autonomy but that is where the similarities end. The whole premise is apples to oranges so I don't see how there can be any meaningful debate on it. Covid is a public safety issue... abortion is an argument about he limits of bodily autonomy and personal liberty. No one is seriously suggesting we arrest and forcibly vaccinate the unvaccinated. On the other hand....people are seriously suggesting women be arrested and jailed for having abortions. Consider that. What people are actually advocating for is the right to protect themselves and their businesses from unvaccinated people who are a proven massive vector for covid cases. Saying you probably won't die so it's okay for me to walk around and risk infecting others is not an answer folks.... Here's why. Let's say you run a business let's say a restaurant and the government forces you to allow unvaccinated workers. Then you have a outbreak at your business. Multiple employees are infected...maybe none die but now you've lost 80% of your staff because you can't have sick people serving food. Now you don't have the staff to run your business, If the employees are insured now your premiums taking a hit, maybe some of your employees decide it's not worth risking their health to work for you. Your business takes a massive hit and you end up folding... Vaccine mandates are about protecting ourselves not enforcing medical treatment on others. I think we can all agree that personal liberty ends where it infringes on others.. Choose your fate. Get vaccinated or go find a society that is willing to accept the risk of having you spread the plague around


I think it’s never going to possible to convince a pro-life person to become pro-choice because think about it this way- due to their religion (which they believe to be the absolute truth), they believe that life begins at conception. They believe that killing a fetus is killing a living human being. Pro-lifers want them to understand that when a fetus becomes a human life is a matter of opinion, but they don’t see it as an opinion, because their religion (which is the ultimate truth for them) tells them that life becomes at conception, they don’t believe that this is up for debate or that multiple view points can be right (how can you challenge God’s word when it’s God who created the universe and thus knows how it works). To them, it’s like asking a pro-choicer to kill a 20 year old human (as they believe the fetus’ life is just as valuable and important as the 20 year olds). Now coming to some of the arguments pro-choicers make against the pro-lifers views: “If they care about life, then why don’t they care about the quality of life after the baby is born?” Well to answer this, it’s as if some random person is asked, “Hey is it okay if we murder XYZ.” Of course, the random person would say no, but that doesn’t mean the random person is actually going to care about what XYZ’s life is like. They’re just against murder. This is how pro-lifers see it. They see it as murder. Being an anti-Vaxer to them is just being against something that is harmful. For example, there are established carcinogens and you wouldn’t want to expose yourself to them. They have a firmly held delusion that the vaccine is also harmful the way carcinogens are, and they don’t want to expose themselves to something so harmful. Essentially, they don’t see the two things as, “my body, my choice.” They see it as “murder & non-exposure to harmful chemicals.”


I am (consider myself) a Christian. I am pro-vax, but not "entirely" pro-choice. Under some circumstances I believe that women should have the choice to decide if they put their life in danger or not, the same way anyone should have the choice to get vaccinated or not. I have 2 daughters. If one of them was raped and got pregnant because of that, and she did not want the baby, she should have the choice to get an abortion. The same rule should apply if her life is in danger, even more if there is a level of certainty that the baby will not survive. What I do not agree with is irresponsible sex encounters that end up in a pregnancy and people just getting abortions because they were irresponsible. That is not not an abortion to save a life, but it is murder. So, you see, I am of that mindset, which doesn't mean it is the correct train of thought so much as MY OWN correct train of though. I respect other people's opinions because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What gets me is people that understand they are entitled to their opinion, but others aren't. It just so happens that the vast majority of people with that demeanor are those that want to go against all that is morally acceptable by society as a whole. If I'm heterosexual then I'm labeled as homophobic. If I'm pro-vax, then I'm a sheep of the government. If I believe there are exceptions to making abortion=murder, then I'm a murderer and cannot call myself a Christian. At this point in my life, I have come to the conclusion that, no matter who you are, there is no one label that can define any of us. We are extremely complex beings, thus you would need a book full of labels to define any one human being. In just 3 labels I think I consider myself as a heterosexual pro-vax pseudo-pro-choice, and even then I'm falling way short to define myself.


I don't think this applies. The same phrase used by different parties doesn't mean they advocate for the same thing. If an animal rights activist said on their birthday that "I want to go free rabbits from a pet store" because it was "their birthday their choice" vs a deranged person saying "I want to kill all the rabbits I can at that pet store" because "my birthday my choice" That doesn't mean they agree with the others wishes at all. All it means is they both said something that indicates what they value. The animal rights activist would be appalled if the deranged person claimed that he had to agree with his actions of killing the rabbits just because they said "my birthday my choice" and vice versa. You can't take something someone says with proper context, nuance, and reason and argue with them over a single phrase. The argument stays just that an argument. It never transitions to a conversation. You could say the same about Nazis and Jews in 1943. Or African Slaves and The US Slave trade. Without proper context hearing a US slave trader say my body my choice takes a different meaning, than a slave saying my body my choice. They're definitely NOT saying the same thing. (These are just extreme examples from history to help understand that this reasoning is flawed because it doesn't take into account the cultural context, and nuance that is needed to reason through these types of topics, I obviously think the slave trade and that nazis are disgusting) Overall I think reasoning this way is a really lazy way to debate anything. Neither side will ever concede and there will never be any mutual understanding. Try asking someone why they could say that about the vaccine and not other issues.


I agree with you. Here is my stance. I'm not anti-vaccine. I am anti-covid-vaccine. For a few reasons. I think of Covid as what it will be in the future. Endemic, flu like, seasonal infection. Any other vaccines have been around for decades and have been proven long term. We don't know long term effects. We have a list of side effects which may or may not happen. In my line of work I am super low risk. I am isolated and work by myself. I wear a mask at work but not outside in public. I only go to work and go home with a small chance i'll stop at the corner store in the morning. I use instacart for groceries, doordash or drivethrus for fast food etc. I am 31, relatively healthy with slightly high glucose level, not pre-diabetic yet, and slightly raised bad cholesterol. All my other blood work like RBC and WBC and corresponding are in the mid high levels which is really good for fighting infections and producing platelets for quick healing. I don't get sick unless its something like salmonella that I would get from eating or ingesting bad food. I've never had the flu, I have also never had or needed the flu shot. All data supports that I have close to 100% chance of survival if getting it. Here is where people want to hate on me. I am fairly conservative. What they don't know is I'm fairly liberal on social and societal issues. I do believe in pro-choice. So I agree with your sentiment. I'm not anti-covid-vax because its not FDA approved/experimental or that I don't think it works. I'm anti-covid-vax because I don't have a need to get one. 100% my choice as it is with other medical decisions. I may regret it in the future if I catch covid, but based on my health diagnostics from my doctor I feel extremely confident without the vaccine.


If you're only argument is "my body my choice" then the logic applies both ways. One person's decision can affect another person's life. Do you think the government should have to right to intervene for the protection of a third party or do you think you should have the right to do whatever you want with your body even if it ends another person's life? Please note my deliberately ambiguous speech so that the same logic applies regardless of which party you are talking about. If you can only see the logic from one side based on who the subject is, then you aren't being objective about the question. We can't have arguments that apply to them but not to us. Instead, let's realize that the conversation is a lot more nuanced than can be attributed to a catch phrase. There are real people involved in horrible situations and blanket political statements hide a lot of suffering. There are thousands of people every year that aren't fighting for right to kill their offspring, but for the right to save their own life from an horrible medical complication and this tends to be completely overlooked. Similarly, there are many people that legitimate reasons to be genuinely afraid of the current political environment regarding the vaccine. Some of these have chronic health issues that makes it far more risky and others are simply apprehensive due to a lack of information because change is scary. The argument "my body my choice" is a bad argument. But there are real people with real issues that are a lot quieter and not living on a catch phrase.


Pro-Life people also believe the unborn fetus is a separate person from the carrying mother. So this is not a 1-to-1 for them. A lot of the pro-chocei stuff really depends on when you believe life begins and stuff like that. So a Pro-Life perosn might argue that the unborn fetus deserves to be protected because that is their body and they do not have the ability to make that choice yet. You're focusing on the choice of the pregnant person while ignoring that Pro-Life people are focusing on the choice of the unborn. So this argument would likely not work with that crowd since they inherently reject that the pregnant person ahs a choice. This is why abortion is the ultimate problem since there will never ever be a compromise that works for both sides. One side always loses. > My argument would be that when you choose to not get vaccinated you're choice doesn't just effect you. Yes, and that is why the Pro-Lifer would argue your choice as a pregnant person to get an abortion affects the life of the unborn fetus, therefore you'd almost walk into a trap of them saying you should be pro-life in fact if you are for choice for others, primarily those who cannot protect themselves. This is my understanding and immediately what I believe their answer would be considering I grew up around hardcore pro-lifers and have had this very discussion before with them. Ultimately your issue is that your logic sequence differs from theirs, and you will never come to an understanding other than agreeing to disagree.


regardless of the subject, I really dislike it when someone points out hypocrisy but fails to mention that it literally goes both ways. As if one side is just dumb, but somehow the other is not or immune somehow. This literally goes both ways, in this context, if you are pro-choice, then by your logic, they have to be anti-vax. "My body my choice" in this context, YOUR context, literally means pro-choice supports anti-vax. Why are the anti-abortion people the only ones being held up to the hypocrisy light? (that's a rhetorical question obviously) >So, yeah, I don't really see how you can be anti-vax and not also pro-choice. Change my view! You already said it yourself and continued to conflate. One is about your life, the other is about an unborn life. I am pro-choice, but you are conflating. I want everyone to have a choice, but I can see where people might believe that ending a life inside of you is quite different than taking a vaccine. >but ultimately it's a choice you're making that has the potential to effect a lot of people who didn't have a choice in the matter. People drink, that affects other people, they can kill them driving, people take drugs, that can ruin all kids of lives. There are a million things people can and do that affect others in a negative and sometimes permanent way. The vaccine is not special in this regard. anti-vaxxers are misinformed, end of story.


People saying "my body, my choice" as a reason for being anti-vax are doing so in bad faith. Pro-life individuals want the government to mandate a medical decision in order to protect people. Rather than explain why they are now against the government mandating a different medical decision in order to protect a different group of people they are trying to deflect so you don't notice their own inconsistency in positions. Depending on your reason for being pro-choice, that same hypocrisy just isn't there. Personally, I don't view a fetus as being a person. So if I say: >the government should mandate a medical decision (vaccinations) to protect people (the unable to be vaccinated) and then you ask me: >then why don't you think the government should mandate a medical decision (banning abortion) in order to protect people (the unborn)? my response would be: >I do not view the unborn as people, therefore I do not see a reason for the government to interfere in a medical decision that only affects the individual making the decision So depending on your reason for being pro-choice there's no inherent hypocrisy in being pro-choice and being in favor of a vax mandate. However, as I have laid out, if you are pro-life then you must also be in favor of a vax mandate otherwise you have to explain your reasons for holding apparently contradictory views.


Your view is based on a misunderstanding of the pro life position. They don't want to control your body because they think they know what's best for you. They consider the unborn baby a separate and distinct person. They consider abortion to be the unjustified murder of this person. Also, you seem to have a misunderstanding about the position held by those against compelled/mandatory vaccination. They're not anti-vax, they're just anti authoritarianism. Some of them have been vaccinated, some not, they're not against vaccines, they don't care if you get it, they're just against the government mandating them. The vaccine protects the person being vaccinated, there is no compelling reason to mandate it beyond the powers that be wanting to take away an individual's ability to assess risk in their own lives and make their own decision about it. So I believe you should change your view for two reasons. 1) your view is based on a misunderstanding of both the positions you're equating as equal 2) it's logically consistent to be both pro life and be against vaccine mandates because in both cases the person believes, even if you disagree, that they're advocating for the human rights of an individual being protected. It's probably far more logically inconsistent to be pro choice and pro mandatory vaccines.


Simply put, actions that cause the death of one person with a 100% chance are all banned. But there are several actions that you can do that somehow endanger others, but not too much. They are forced to accept the existence of cars for example, despite a car free town would be much safer for pedestrians. Abortion is like drunk driving. You endanger few human bwings but you endanger them greatly. Not getting the vaccine, with all the people vaccinated already, is like driving a car sober. You may hurt or kill someone, but mostly it not gonna happen. Especially if you follow the rules(road laws/staying at home woth symptoms) and other people have protection(their seatbelts/their vaccine). Another difference is direct and indirect actions. Abortion directly leads to the death of someone else. Going out without a vaccine isnt a killing action. First you have to be infected with covid, not notice the symptoms or refuse to stay at home, meet someone, infect them and then their body has to fail in defending against the virus. These are several hoops, unlike abortion->death. Last but not least, I saw several pro vaccine pro mask, even pro vax mandate pro choice people. I think that regardless of your views on abortion and vaccines, the 2 issues are just different.


>The only argument I've been able to come up with being against this line of thinking is that abortion effects a 3rd party (the fetus) where as a vaccination only effects the host. My argument would be that when you choose to not get vaccinated you're choice doesn't just effect you. Your choice has the potential to effect countless other people around you including death. I think you are missing a very important distinction between the two. In the case of an abortion you are directly ending the life of the child (if you see it that way, I am just trying to position it from the perspective of someone who is both against abortion and anti-vax, the merits of the abortion argument are not relevant here). In this case ending the pregnancy may be the goal, but the actual act required to meet the goal is to end the life of the fetus. Now in the case of anti-vax ending or otherwise affecting the life and rights of another person is not a requirement in not getting vaccinated, in fact when you don't get vaccinated you are not taking any action at all. You are not killing someone to make it so you can't get vaccinated, you are not getting vaccinated and as a potential consequence you may get sick and then spread the illness.


Let me premise by saying I’m pro vax. I’ve gotten the shot, so don’t hit back at me by calling me anti vax. You acknowledged the counterpoint to your argument, namely that ones choice to get vaccinated does not effect others while an abortion directly effects another human being. Your counterpoint, that not getting a vaccine could cause you to fatally infect someone else, is a flawed one. At this point, every person above the age of 12 in America can get the vaccine. The vaccine is proven to reduce the rate of death or serious infection to practically nothing. If someone chooses to not get the shot and then dies from COVID, that’s on them not you or anyone else. I know what you’ll say next. “What about the children?” While it’s true that children under the age of 12 cannot get the vaccine, their rate of death is so low that it’s practically negligible. At this point, ones decision to get vaccinated or not effects no one but themselves, while an abortion clearly effects another being. We could argue all day about to ethics of abortion or COVID policy, but at the end of the day, they are not comparable arguments and the “my body my choice” argument is much more applicable to the vaccine than to abortion.


I think a lot of people need to take in the reality of the situation too. I'm pro choice. I'm also typically anti vaccine mandate except for certain circumstances like travel. But that's because normally if our hospital systems were collapsing people would see the need to protect themselves. But what we're currently seeing is that as our healthcare system collapses, people are going to their local feed store to eat livestock medication. How do you reason with someone who will buy livestock medication, lupus medication, and cleaning solution before taking a free vaccine with 20+ years of research behind it? How do you reason with someone who will punch a teenage girl because of the mask she's wearing while screaming "I'm doing this for the kids!!!" How do you reason with people whose dying words are "this is a hoax!" In a normal situation I think vaccine mandates are unnecessary because the population is smart enough to do their part to get the contagion under control. But in our current reality vaccine mandates are a must because half the population thinks sheep medication is what free thinkers eat to stop a virus we have a known cure for.


I don't agree with the viewpoint, but I do think it's possible to be anti-vaccine on personal liberty grounds and pro-life on personal liberty grounds. The anti-vaccine "my body, my choice" argument is easy to follow: I should be in charge of what happens to my body. People can say that the public interest should override this principle, but it's easy enough to understand the principle they are invoking. They don't think you should be able to forcibly inject someone against their will. The anti-abortion position is based on the idea that an abortion kills a human being, and that killing people is wrong. They reject the "my body, my choice" framework of pro-choice advocates because they would say that fundamentally, the body you are discussing in an abortion isn't the woman's body, but the child's body being sustained by its mother. The fundamental argument in abortion isn't about who gets to make choices for a woman's body, but rather, "When does human offspring become a person with rights?" When someone says "My body, my choice" about abortion, what they are really saying is that the thing growing inside a woman isn't a person, it's just a growth that's part of the woman's body that she should to do with as she pleases, no different than her freedom to tattoo her forearm or pierce her ear or remove a cancerous tumor. "My body" is a statement about what that thing is that's growing inside of her. We've sort of settled on the idea that birth is what confers those rights of personhood, but "upon exiting the mother's body" is not the only way to answer that question. You could imagine personhood at conception, at first brain activity, at first heartbeat, at viability outside the womb, at actual birth, or even at some developmental milestone post-birth. So while I don't personally hold the anti-vax/anti-abortion mix of views, I think those views can be entirely consistent with one another. They both stem from the concept that one person can't do something to another person's body without their consent.


>If you infect someone with something you're carrying and they die because of it I'd argue that you caused the death of that person. Sure you could argue it's not a one-to-one thing and there's a chance that you might not infect anyone, but ultimately it's a choice you're making that has the potential to effect a lot of people who didn't have a choice in the matter. It's almost September 2021 yeah, there is something seriously wrong and not getting through if people still believe that this injection will stop you infecting other people. It has been well documented that this injection does not stop you catching or spreading covid it only lessens your symptoms. My body my choice, is exactly that. If it only lessens my symptoms then it literally does only effect me. I don't think everything needs to be wrapped up in a nice little bow, your personal decision whether or not to take a vaccine has no beating on your thoughts on someone else having an abortion. Not everything needs to be rationalised, everybody has free will, simple as that.


1. The stealing of “My body, my choice” by the anti-vax side is already a patented acknowledgement of the parallels between the vaccine debate and the abortion issue. You can claim that they have to accept abortions, but it’s just as fair to claim as well that abortionists have to oppose vaccine mandates. However, the “My body, my choice” claim you’re making here really only works in one direction, and that’s because... 2. This claim is countered by anti-abortionists not because they oppose bodily autonomy but because they view the fetus as being a person with his/her own body. In other words, by this viewpoint, you could oppose abortion by claiming that the mother has no right to kill her fetus, while still adhering to the principle of bodily autonomy. Not arguing here for any particular stance on any issue. But your claim here is that an anti-vaxxer who states this but opposes abortion is being logically inconsistent. One could disagree with the reasoning, but whether it be accurate or faulty, it is not inconsistent. As for the matter of a vaccine’s effect on others around you, the parallel between that and an aborted fetus is, quite frankly, asinine. All beliefs about vaccine effectiveness aside, an aborted fetus is actively killed. It might put someone else at risk if you or I do not get vaccinated (I again make no claim here, and am stating this only for arguments’ sake). But likewise, any interaction I have with another human being might transfer any number of pathogens that have been around for centuries. Or kick off some butterfly effect that leads to some distant 3rd party’s death in a car wreck 5 years from now. In short, you’re comparing a case of risk analysis to a case of overt killing (be it killing of tissue or of human life). This is like comparing smoking a cigar to shooting myself in the skull - Sure, both can kill me, but the principles of the acts are hardly the same.


You say “ultimately it’s a choice you’re making that has the potential to effect a lot of people who didn’t have a choice in the matter” I think this is the crux of the argument. Because a fetus truly has no choice and therefor these people must also truly have no choice for it to be a one to one comparison. But I argue that the people potentially being affected by the unvaccinated person have many avenues to take to avoid the potential danger of an unvaccinated person. They themselves can get vaccinated, not go in public, only go to vaccine enforced areas. Since people can actively take precautions the main one being to get vaccinated because what harm is a unvaccinated person to you if your vaccinated. All while a fetus cannot avoid the harm of an abortion. So someone who doesn’t want the vaccine because my body my choice could be aware that other people can take precautions to avoid the danger of said person while a fetus cannot, therefor making the pro choice and anti vaccine stances not the same.


The reason I’m pro life and anti-MANDATED-vaccine, (it’s about freedom not the vaccine itself) is because on is PURELY an anatomical arguement, vaccines, while abortion is a convoluted, autonomy, AND human life arguement. Our rights end where another begins, and so ending the life of a separate biological entity is murder. We have specific criteria for life, under a biological context. If it has human DNA, it’s life should not be able to be taken without due process of law. Not to mention, except in cases of rape, (a minority of abortion cases) the pregnancy is a direct result of your choice to have sex, not use protection, or not use birth control. Unless you happen to be one of the less than 1% of breakthrough cases. Then even still, you chose to have sex. While me taking or not taking my vaccine for a disease with a 99%+ survival rate, doesn’t suddenly change the efficacy of your vaccine and save you more, if I also have my shot. The arguements are apples and oranges


You've actually presented an argument in favor of non-abortion. I've always thought that the government should be left out of your reproductive choices. Pro-choice or pro-life, as historically argued (regardless of their nomenclature), are still choices for the parents and doctor. The debate should be about whether the government has a right to step in and make a decision for your health and the health of a fetus. In the case of a vaccine, states do have the right to mandate vaccines for the benefit of others. **Because, constitutionally, your freedoms are restricted once they impose on the freedoms of others.** Anti-vaxers don't want the government making choices for them. While on the other hand pro-lifers do want the government to make choices for them. If you're suggesting that the states mandate that people take a vaccine for the betterment of the general public, to protect their freedoms, this would be similar to a state mandated non-abortion position.


While I agree with your point about pro choice and anti vaccine the vaccine does not change the spread of the disease or ability for people to carry it. When you have an abortion it is 100% threatening the life of another, the baby, and when you choose not to get the vaccine it only affects the person who does or does not get it. The vaccine is to help people who contract the virus from getting as ill as if they had not got the vaccine, which at this point there is evidence to support that immunity from having had the virus is more effective than the vaccine at reducing and removing symptoms. At the end of the day everyone should have a choice in a free country and if you still feel like people who don’t get the vaccine are affecting you then you also should have the choice to stay home and not go out. Clearly the folks who don’t want to get the vaccine and yet go out in public aren’t worried about it and it’s not your duty to be involved in their personal decisions.


Pro-life isn't about saving lives. It's about controlling women's bodies, in the same way, they use our periods to shame us and make women unequal. If "pro-lifers" cared about life then they would understand any time a woman got pregnant our life is immediately in danger. I personally know three women that nearly died in childbirth. In the US we also have the highest maternal and infant death rates than any other developed nation. If pro-lifers cared at all about life in general they would put a woman's life first! And at the bare minimum be pro-things that help a mother and child's suffering. You know like healthcare and wages that someone can actually support a child on. Also, the same people screaming about fetuses won't even wear a mask to save others or protect pregnant women, or their neighbors so they are full of shit! Pro-life is the biggest sham to punish women, keep genders unequal, and allow abusive partners to have total control over women!


>The only argument I've been able to come up with being against this line of thinking is that abortion effects a 3rd party (the fetus) where as a vaccination only effects the host. the ***only*** argument? isn't that sort of night and day difference in cases? \-- I haven't taken the vaccine. I don't think its necessary yet (for my circumstance, for the disease risks). And I reserve my right, to refuse \_any and all medical procedures, or drugs\_ that are not in my interest. You, have absolutely \_no say\_ in what I choose medically. None. You never will. IF, you've chosen to take the vaccine, good for you. Now leave me, to exercise my right to make the same choice. Really just that cut and dried. State compelled medical procedures, or state/corporate medical interference, \_should be fought tooth, nail, and gun\_. There's a limit where I humor, your thinking, you matter. You don't. You never will.


No, and this not an honest argument to make. Prohibiting something is less invasive than requiring it, so it isn't the same thing. Also, pro-life folks believe that every abortion is murder, and therefore every abortion banned is a murder prevented and one life saved. Is every required vaccine a life saved? No, statistically, you need about 100 vaccinations to save one life. Well worth the investment of time and money, but not necessarily enough reason to compel someone to put something into their body that they don't understand and agree with. Especially with the Delta variant, which spreads pretty easily even through vaccinated people (i.e.- no herd immunity is practical). The argument for compelling people to get vaccinated really boils down to "I'm smart, you're dumb, so I should decide for you." It's extremely patronizing, which is why some people reflexively resist.


The obvious difference is that people who are ‘pro-life’ don’t believe that you shouldn’t be able to make choices regarding your own health, but that the fetus also has rights on its side. And so deciding to abort it doesn’t only affect your body, but obviously effects the fetus, which without intervention, would grow into a human being. And so it seems equally true to say, “If you’re pro-vax because you believe some health decisions (vaccines) shouldn’t be your choice because not being vaccinated can harm others, then you must be pro-life because deciding to abort a fetus is a healthcare decision that adversely effects another.” The pro-life position is easily derided because of its support from evangelicals, etc. but there’s a very good humanist argument against abortion as well, and it’s good to understand both sides of the argument.


You answered your own question in your post. The reason the term "pro-choice" even exists is because it was a response to "pro-life" and people needed a slogan so that their side wouldn't appear to be anti-life. Obviously, people who are against abortion don't believe that a fetus is part of the mother's body so therefore the decision does not belong to her and legally they view it as a separate person with separate rights. So you are right to pick up on the irony of the situation, becuse many of the anti-vax people using the term specifically because it is tongue-in-cheek and counters a (to them) annoying slogan they have heard for 30 years, with the added benefit that they believe that it actually is more appropriately used in this case because it is your own body and not (in their view) a separate person as is the case in the abortion argument.


Your comparison doesn't really make sense. Anti-vax people aren't anti-vax because of "my body, my choice". That is in reference to mask and vaccine mandates but it isn't the reason for being anti-vax. If your post were talking about the mandates, then it would be a better comparison but it's still a lame one. Forcing people to inject something into their body is a different than killing something that's debatably human life. Most people that are anti-vax prefer more the more natural route, even if harmful to society overall. That is why they also tend to be conservative voters. Anti-vax people also tend to be more religious or spiritual, which plays a big role in anti-abortion movements. I'm pro choice and got my vaccine but yeah this post is not thought out at all and is just circle jerking


The media is lying to you. The sooner you shut off your programming boxes and start using your own brain, the sooner you will realize the truth of what's really going on. It's nothing you are hearing. Try bitchute, try Brighton, try Odyssey....those sites are of the truth and reality. Not Google. And bye, you oughtta realize something. That is: the media, all of it including nearly every outlet online including Google is all owned by 3 entities. So all the articles your seeing, all the supposed debunking, is all lies. There is an evil agenda propagated by these evil who plan to kill off 80% of us and control any of us left standing ( or dying in a bed from the genocidal vax ) try researching this crap on the sites I mentioned and hopefully you will become a bit more aware of reality.


I don't understand the people who are screaming about personal freedom over possible vaccine mandates (which have been around since vaccines were created in schools, universities, many private employers, military, and most of the time government employees), but don't care that they keep renewing the Patriot Act, collecting and weaponizing our personal data, and openly creating a surveillance state. But let's all complain about temporary mask requirements often driven by corporations and local government as well as life saving vaccines in the middle of a global pandemic though. That's a good use of our time and effort. SMFH. We have real problems to deal with, we really don't need to create more out of ignorance and political/religious dogma.


I would say that amother way of expressing this idea would be to say the following: If one supports banning abortions because one believes that society must protect those that cannot protect themselves (fetuses in this case), then that person must also accept that requiring individuals to be vaccinated is reasonable and acceptable because vaccination is the best way to protect the members of society that cannot protect themselves from deadly diseases. In the case of COVID-19, those who cannot protect themselves are primarily kids up to age 11 and people with compromised immune systems, but I would also argue that healthcare workers fall into this group to a lesser degree (since they generally can and should be vaccinated but they may not be able to choose avoiding sick people). Unfortunately I expect that using this line of reasoning on virulently anti-vaccine individuals is going to be about as effective as calling them names or such.


There is a distinction: anti-abortion crowd see a fetus as being a human being, thus abortion as a murder. Ad absurdum - they are okay with suicide, because that is just your body/choice; it is a fact that life begins at conception, (just usually governments see the fetus as “alive” only with birth). Abortion is then ending someone else’s life, thus murder. Governments usually have various “milestones”, up until any abortion is OK, whilst after, only to protect the mother. But those are artificial; some people see abortion OK until the fetus is viable. I personally think that aborting “a few cells” is always acceptable, but aborting after 8 months warrants emergencies only. (some people advocate for abortion being OK right up to birth)


Or you die from vaccine or have serious medical complications. Not to mention, being vaccinated does not affect ability to carry COVID and spread it to others, nor does it guarantee avoiding illness, to include dying from COVID. So, choice or not, what difference is it making and what, if anything, does it have to do with abortion from inception to the delivery room table. And there’s no conflict between the pro-life/choice debate and a desire not to want to take part of the largest global experiment ever conducted to apparently “correct” for the human behavior that brought the virus to us in the first place. So, you can pretend you’re saving someone else by getting the shot, but I’ll go on choosing to wait, watch and seeing what happens.


Do you think people care about being logically consistent? "We love small government and freedom, but not for abortion, religion in schools, and a bunch of other shit." "We think the drug war is evil and ineffective.... let's do the same exact thing with guns now." "We are the party of anti-descrimination... unless it's a particular race or ethnic group(s) we think is a little *too priveleged.* Make laws to ensure they're last in line for schools and jobs." "READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES...*spends trillions on killing peasants in god foresaken desert shitholes*" "We love science, all medical care issues should be left to scientists... but also doctors are full of shit and being a 300lb neckbeard redditor is just healthy at every size!"


I'm pro-choice and support a vaccine mandate, does that violate your logic? Not getting the vaccine does affect others. If you want to be part of our society you have to follow basic rules, like not being a Typhoid Mary. The thing with a lot of "pro-lifers" is that they argue abortion is murder, therefore it should be treated like any other murder, the fact hat the unborn is inside another living human being is irrelevant to them. Saying "my body, my choice", to them, is like saying I can shoot someone because I have the right to do with my body anything I want. For these people, arguments of agency have no meaning. They see abortion as murder, hard stop. For the most part they're using the "my body, my choice" line ironically.


>The only argument I've been able to come up with being against this line of thinking is that abortion effects a 3rd party (the fetus) where as a vaccination only effects the host. My argument would be that when you choose to not get vaccinated you're choice doesn't just effect you. Your choice has the potential to effect countless other people around you including death. If you infect someone with something you're carrying and they die because of it I'd argue that you caused the death of that person. Except getting the vaccine does not stop you from spreading it, and is mainly there to help prevent serious infection from what I have heard. So it is mostly a protection for yourself not others


Yea yea. We have proven the right to be stupid over and over. How about we try doing the best we can for ourselves, our family, and our world. If all else fails try what the scientist recommend. It is definitely not getting better the anti vaccer way. I have had the vaccine, yep. And I understand that I could have a “ breakthrough case.” I could carry it , so I add being at home, mask, distance, very little socializing. But I truly think we would be past this thing here in US if we had approached it as a medical epidemic, instead of a political wedge, a soapbox. I m wasting my time but y’all, we got other big problems we can start fighting over! I promise there’s more to disagree on!


“My body my choice” was chosen ironically to highlight the hypocrisy of insisting on mandating medical practice on those unwilling to get it championed by those who insist the law should not prevent a woman from seeking a “medical procedure”. You might have gotten away with a claim to intellectual honesty a few months ago whilst believing the vaccines have any community benefit. As shown recently, and publicly confirmed by the CDC, the vaccines do not prevent carrying or transmitting the disease. The best case immune response is a symptom free experience while infected and no complications after. This takes away any notion of a choice for or against vaccines impacting anyone else.


If I were anti-vax and against the right to legal abortion, chances are I would value my life over others people's lives and would resist appeals to consider what effects my actions (not getting vaccinated and probably not wearing masks) could have on other community members and citizens. I would also probably believe that embryos and fetuses are people, and I would point out that actively killing a human being is wrong full stop. The irony is my choices could very well wind up causing people to die, but I would justify it by pointing out I'm not actually (directly) killing anyone. Sure there's some amount of inconsistency and perhaps irony, but it's not a straight-up contradiction.


You are missing the point. When an anti-vaxxer says my body my choice they mean it, they don't want to do something they (incorrectly) think is unsafe and risk harming themselves. If that anti vaxxer is also against abortion is it for the same reason, it's the baby right to live they are protecting. From their prospective the fetus is it's own person, not a part of the mothers body, so aborting it isn't changing the mothers body, it's killing the child. I see where you are coming from but I think your stance is a comparison that doesn't really help anyone. And for the record I am pro choice and pro vax so pls don't blow me up trying to change my view 😅


Morality isn't fungible. Simply put, no individual situation ever has an exact moral equivalent. Sure, both vaccination and abortion relate to bodily autonomy vs the good of others, but the specifics are different. For example, an anti-vax, anti-abortion person may believe that the net benefit of mandating vaccines through sacrificing bodily autonomy does not exist while a net benefit does exist in the case of abortion. We could disagree, but being anti-vax and anti-abortion is not automatically irrational just because they both involve the bodily autonomy vs. good of others debate and that the first privileges the former, the second the latter.


yeah except not - and its simple really - pro lifers by and large dont argue that baby is part of the mother so ur argument is invalid and irrelevant (strawman on ur part innit) - and we are pro choice its just that killing unborn isnt a legit choice to get rid of undesirable anymore than it is legit choice to idk kill homeless - as far as choices we agree with is abstinence or giving up for adoption or someone else u know perhaps who wants it -u know in usa theres millions of ppl on waiting list to get a chance to have a baby edit for the record im pro vax not only that but im pro mandates on the grounds of nationalism so theres that too


>"my body my choice" which sounds an awful lot like something we've been hearing from the pro-choice movement for a long time I think that was on purpose, anti-vaxx conservatives starting using this because they know it's talking point for the other side. ​ >I think that if you believe in that statement as an argument for being anti-vaccination that you have to also be pro-choice Do you believe the inverse is also true? If someone uses "my body my choice" as an argument for abortion, then they should also be against forced vaccinations? Why or why not? I don't think it's just one side of the debate being hypocritical


First off, you can be anti covid shot but not anti vax, these people exist more than anti vaxxers. Labeling them that is dangerous. Second, saying "my body my choice" is simply a shot at the people who adopted that term. Either way you have a choice. You choose to put a penis inside you and boom, possibility of a baby so you abort it, cool, whatever.. You know what you are getting into with the sex/baby/abortion. You don't know what youre getting into with these covid vaccines. One deals with personal responsibility and the other deals with actual choice, especially that more and more evidence is showing vaccines don't mean shit


I’m radically pro-choice (to the point that I’d federally fund abortion and adoption), but your logic is terrible. Pro-life people aren’t concerned about the mother’s body, but the fetuses, which they (I think mistakenly) is already a full person deserving of rights. So when you say, “my body my choice,” they essentially hear, “it’s my house, and I’ll kill my children in it if I want to.” The logical breakdown is about them thinking an unconscious mass of tissues counts as a person. If intelligent animals don’t deserve rights, by what possible rationale would you grant them to something that doesn’t even know it exists?


When liberty and life are up for debate….God bless the USA. We’ll fight each-other over this, while the rich get richer and the middle class evaporates quicker. Rinse fuckin repeat. Idc who gets vaccinated, covid is endemic at this point. Bold move by science to eradicate a respiratory transmitted virus to begin with, particularly one with a 7-10 latency period before symptoms really present themselves. Should be blaming the managers sitting in the coliseum, while we fight each-other over this. Division is ripe in the USA, wheres the other therapeutics we all paid for by the way? With our taxes and Op. Warp Speed??


I know this is a really deep questions, but I hope someone can answer this. Anyway, To my Logic Majors and Degree holders. Would this statement be considered a logical fallacy? Because A is true then B is true,so therefore B = A? Or in this case Because you are Antivax mandate, therefore you are also pro-Choice, So Pro-Choice = Antivax mandate. It seems that this line of reasoning doesn't always follow. It would if other factors were not involved. Other factors include human emotion. Because emotion can cause one to be irrational. For example: Someone may be Pro-Choice, but "feel" (quoted that word on purpose) that Anti-Vax mandates are not the same thing because of a mired of other factors that don't relate to the base "logical" concept of A = B, so therefore B = A Instead we get A = B, but B can't be equal to A because while A and B may the argument "my body my choice" B and A are different because reasons? They both use the same argument so how can they both be considerered different?? Man I hope someone answers this 😭


I'm not going to take a hard line stance on this, but from what I hear through the news is that fully vaccinated people can still become infectious as asymptomatic carriers. So technically if you become fully vaccinated you are still a threat to unaware bystanders. It's why when people get vaccinated they are suggested to still wear a mask, to protect others. I may be a bit misdirected here but knowingly destroying and underdeveloped fetus and inadvertently and unknowingly spreading something that could cause a death seems like two different things completely. Either way stay safe in these crazy times


Kinda a side bar but My body my choice isn’t even an answer to why someone is anti-vax. The amount of people I’ve talked to and asked if they’re vaccinated and they’ve said “I just don’t think you should be forced to,” is to much. I didn’t ask if you think the government should force people, I asked if you had it and why or why not. The two are unrelated. I’ve came to the conclusion if their reason is in the essence of “my body my choice” their beliefs are almost solely partisan dominated and there is no chance to convince them to get it because they’ll think of an excuse no matter what.


For the record, I am pro-life and pro-vaccine. I think the simple answer though for anyone anti-vax is that one is putting stuff into their body, one is about taking something out of their body. They will see a vaccine as some set of chemicals that is unnatural going into their body as some sort of poison. They see a foetus as a natural, living being who should have their own rights to life and therefore it's right to make sure it can survive outside the womb before it is extracted from there. There's a huge difference that your initial argument ignores and simplifies too far beyond.


The pro-life argument is fundamentally a rejection of the appropriateness of "my body my choice" with regards to abortion. Pro lifers believe that human rights need to be strictly applied to the fetus. The pro-life types aren't saying "you don't get to make that choice about your body" they are saying "you don't get to make that choice about *someone else's* body (ie the fetus). So yeah I don't see any reason why you couldn't be all "my body my choice" with regards to vaccination and still think that abortion is immoral due to the imposition on another (non-consenting) human life.


You're missing the point of being pro-life. Those people think abortion is the murder of a human as they believe life begins at conception (or some stage of early-mid pregnancy). So saying "my body, my choice" from their perspective does not conflict. On the other end of the argument, there is a conflict because they're applying "my body, my choice" selectively. I have yet to see an explanation to how the "my body, my choice" abortion crowd dis-allow adults from making their own vaccine decisions when the phrase is applied. Just something to think about. I claim no side here.


I think this opens up an interesting moral argument. Imagine the earth was conscious and all of the organism inside earth help form that conscious behavior (so basically Gaia from mythology). Let’s say Gaia decided to kill all of the -insert random race- on earth (committing genocide) because Gaia does not like the influence that race has on its overall body. Would that be morally wrong for Gaia to do? Our existence all form to make an even bigger conscious being yet we individually are still separated from Gaia as a whole, though at the same time we are what make up Gaia.


Not an antivax but choosing not to vax your kid and choosing to kill your unborn kid are a very different. Letting your children choose later in life if they want to get vaccinated VS taking away any possibility of choice from your child as you are killing them. The eternal issue with unregulated abortion is that in law your rights usually end when they can cause serious harm to another. Very hard to say if you are YOU while being an unborn child in your mother's belly. Kind of saying if you support Palestine over israel you must also support the Nazi.... Not really.


Pro-Life argument is that it's killing a life, and they don't agree with the notion that baby/fetus is the woman's body. It's one of those intractable arguments where people are just going to perceive it in the manner that they want. Therefore, it's not really the same thing as being opposed to his vaccine. Furthermore, characterizing people who are opposed to this vaccine as "anti-vax" is disingenuous and smacks of a desire to lampoon people and act superior instead of seeking any real dialogue or change. Just some things to think about. Not interested in people ranting.


It is redefinition same as "Pro-choice" is supposedly "pro-abortion if you want it" but has become about everything else same as pro-life has been redifined to social welfare systems and other things though shear contempt of opposing sides. If you are pro-choice, you must also respect anti-vaxx choice. This is philosophical contradiction and always has been. New use by anti-vaxxers is because they despise the contradiction and embrace it to show how meaningless saying is while forcing other side to embrace truly being pro-choice or leave it altogether. If you are pro-choice, you must be pro-choice on body autonomy or you are not.


This repeats in my head too. I know it’s the religious that decided to “co opt” this term but it’s going to have some blow back they haven’t considered. I can see my daughters ignoring anything a religious person says as illogical and toxic. I tried to raise them in the church but no takers. The churches have a crisis on their hand recruiting young members. This is a dumb dumb dumb idea for them. So very dumb with long term consequences Although it makes me happy to see Catholic school admissions plummet after several modern day examples of rampant pedophila.


Disclaimer: I am vaxxed and pro-choice. The reason people arent pro-choice, isn't because they dont believe "my body my choice" its because they believe you are killing a child. So they see child murder as worse than someone's choice not being fulfilled. It isn't a perfect comparison as if you don't get vaxxed, yeah you up the chances of getting yourself or someone else dying but its not certain, especially as those who likely die are adult people who have made the decision to take risks themselves, unlike how they see abortion as 100% an innocent child dying.


Yes, but only if the anti-choice crowd didn't recognize the tiny things inside women's bodies as a complete person with their own body and their own choices. Pregnant women are seen as incubators, vessels. The thing inside is recongized as a person no matter how far along it is and whether it's existence is wanted by the host or not. The anti-choice crowd will never accept the original meaning of "my body, my choice" because they see a distinction between the owner of the uterus and the thing inside it. Source: grew up deeply entrenched in anti-choice culture.


There is a vast difference between the covid vaccine and abortion. Almost all abortion ends with death (unless the baby by some miracle survives). Not getting the covid vaccine doesn't necessarily harm anyone. For one, that person may not even get covid. Secondly even if they get covid they may not even transfer it so someone. Thirdly, in the event they happen to transfer it to someone that person likely wont even die. There's around a 99% chance to survive covid (pending factors such as age and weight). There's almost 100% a human will die in an abortion.


Nope. People who are pro-life (like me) know that baby's in the womb, or fetuses, are human beings. We believe that every fetus is just like you or me, no less human, just as human as anybody. They are living people. They are innocent and to have an abortion is to end THEIR LIFE and THEIR BODY, not your own. If you are anti-vax (I'm not) then you are potentially harming yourself primarily, and you are making a choice about your own body. In abortion, you intentionally and violently rip apart and end the life of an innocent child, another distinct person. Abortion is an intentional and 100 percent likely to end in death. Anti-vax is dangerous most likely only to yourself


Pro lifer believe the baby has a right of choice. You obviously didn’t care to look it up and just assumed your argument was so amazing you could easily prove anyone wrong. From the beginning your argument is wrong. Pro-choice people believe the unborn child isn’t alive or just aren’t religious and don’t believe in souls. Pro-life people believe he unborn child is alive or has a soul and so it’s murder to unnecessarily kill them. Most pro-lifers want abortion to exist they just want it to be used only when necessary for the mothers life.


Not getting vaccinated categorically does not only effect the person not being vaccinated. It makes them a risk vector for every person they interact with every day. It places many people at continuous risk for the sake of a single individual’s primitive, self-indulgent idiocy. There should be no choice involved in vaccination. Its should be a baseline social duty that no-one questions because it is for the good of the group. If you refuse it, then you should simply not be allowed to interact with the society that you care so little about.


If you believe that life starts at conception, abortion is killing a baby... If you think that, which a lot of anti-abortion people do, then its not in the same category as maybe infecting someone else with a disease that has a very high survive rate. From their perspective, youu are essentially arguing that not getting vaccinated is the same as killing a baby. I don't think thats a defensible position. None of that is my opinion, but if you emphathize with their logic on life at conception then what you said doesnt make sense.


I agree with you, but the main argument I see from that camp is that one body encompasses another when a woman’s pregnant. You’re never gonna change the view of “pro-life” people that there is a responsibility to take care of the body that’s growing inside of a woman. To them, it’s the same as driving safely with someone in the car with you. “My body, my choice. Someone else’s body, not your choice.” But with the “pro-life” camp, of course once it leaves your body, they don’t give a fuck. Both for a human, and for a virus.


Yes I agree. I also think dichotomous thinking is the biggest issue with society these days. It’s so annoying everyday seeing people assume if you believe this you must hate that or love this… everything is a lot more complex than what redditors make it out to be, but constantly splitting people into groups as “for” or “against” something detracts from all discussions from the actual issues and prevents dialogue that could create positive change keeping people in a constant back and forth circle jerk of virtue signaling


Ok, if you’re pro-choice then you must also believe in the anti-vax version of “my body my choice”. The two things are not apples to apples. And abortion has at most (depending on whether your definition of when human life begins is religious or medical in nature) one other person affected other than the potential mother. Comparing vaccines to abortion is a false equivalency fallacy. Vaccination itself has low personal impact and high societal impact whereas abortion has high personal impact and low societal impact.


Potentially somewhat increasing the risk of death of others is very different from actively killing someone. If you believe that all human life is sacred(because soul shit or whatever), you should encourage actions that promote safety, but you would absolutely abhor abortion. --- Refusing to get vaccinated is like driving after a beer or two(staying just under the legal limit). You might harm someone, you might not. Its not a great idea, but you aren't directly causing harm, just making it more likely to happen.


Making the question as apolitical as I can: > Iff a woman has the sole executive right to remove an inseminated egg cell (and its subsequent growth); then a person has the sole executive right to **not** inject foreign material that trains a body to fight a virus. Without the century of circus and controversy to create cultural context it is clear that any relation is tenuous and unhelpful at best, if not outright bad. No society is going to progress if they keep using the same words to have the same arguments.


The heart of the debate is - (i) Pro-lifers believe when the sperm joins the egg, it becomes a person. Thus, abortion is murder. (ii) Anti-vax people either believe covid is fake or overrated, or the vaccines are a form of control or is a conspiracy, or they don't want the inconveniance as long as they are personally safe and not at-risk. Abstract concepts like "my choice" etc. are political mantras. Nobody would support "my choice" for AIDs or Ebola. Also nobody would support abandoning a baby on a street to die as "my choice".


A large part of the problem is that important issues have been divided into sound bites, quips, and slogans. "Vaccination" and "Abortion" are two different issues with different circumstances and different consequences. Thus, I think they should be argued separately from one another. Ideally, we would be arguing the merits of each argument rather than trying to reduce complex ideas into neat slogans, with "My body, my choice" being one of them, whether uttered by the left or the right. Such is the new normal


There is a huge difference between actively killing someone (what pro lifers believe abortions are) and refusing to do something even if it could potentialy harm others. Would you say that if someone who is afraid of getting the covid shot accidentaly infects annother person and they unfortunately die and someone who has murdered thier infant child because he didn't want to care for it are the same? To be clear: I am not defending anti vax or pro life I am just saying that your argument doesen't make sense.


Not getting vaxed, or at least going out while not vaxed, effects a third party, so its a public problem, if u want to go out without a vax, then u need to get vaxed, its not your body your choice, bc this is a public issue, not an individual one, saying my body my choice to the vax is like saying my body my choice to not being allowed to spread something like this ebola, no, its not your body your choice bc your choice will kill me, abortion on the other hand doesnt effect a third party, a fetus isnt a human


It is the right to one's own bodily autonomy. They are the same. The op's point is valid, but yes it also works the other way. Specifications are moot. Bodily autonomy is bodily autonomy. Does their perspective towards pro life effect the current climate. Yes. Voting for people that enact laws against the rights to one's own body WILL NEVER STOP AT ONE ISSUE. The gates are open. Now either vote for people that want to close them or....well, get fucked. It is about the idea, not the subject content.


There is a fallacy here in that “my body my choice” applies to abortion because a woman’s decision to abort a fetus can only affect her body. It doesn’t result in harm to others bodies or babies. My body my choice doesn’t really apply to anti-vax, in that a woman’s (or anyone, using woman in this example for parity) choice to not get vaccinated puts other people’s bodies at higher risk for contracting Covid-19 than if they were vaccinated . So anti vax is more like our bodies, my choice


You're assuming that the people making this argument want to maintain logically consistent beliefs instead of cynically using a cliche from a different issue entirely to mock liberals. Keep in mind that when it comes to ideological conflicts like we are seeing play out with the pandemic and vaccines, hypocrisy doesn't really matter to most people when they are accused of it by someone on the other side. You won't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.


That seems like a logically consistent position from the perspective of the pregnant person, but where it seems like the argument falls apart is when you give agency to the fetus, whose bodily autonomy is violated by the choice of the mother. In other words, it's not just your body at stake so it shouldn't be your choice Granted, this argument requires that we grant equal rights to a fetus as a person, and I'm personally not sold on that position, but it's an argument you're likely to encounter.


They say that because it's a "gotcha" from the pro abortion groups. It's intentionally the same phrasing. The "you must be pro choice" comment is the other side of the same dumbass pedantic "I'm not touching you" mentality. If someone is pro-vaccine-mandate they are not also pro abortion. If someone wants to make a silly attempt at false equivalency to get you to shut up, that doesn't mean they hold that ideological belief. It just means they think they can use your argument against you.