Pro-Choice.
In the past, that term has brought to mind a woman’s decision to continue or abort her pregnancy. Today, ‘pro-choice’ might also bring to mind the decision to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
Pro-choice used to be a rallying cry often heard from the ideological left, while pro-life was often the call of the right. But, when it comes to the vaccine, those rallying cries have switched party affiliations, with both sides attacking the other for their seeming ideological flip-flop. The discourse has become heated with each side criticizing the other for ideological impurity.
But, has there really been a true break in ideology?
I argue no.
Both sides actually agree on one thing: the government should step in when a person’s right to life is substantially threatened. They just disagree about what point a substantial threat arises.
An understanding of the underlying consistency between both sides is crucial to productive dialogue between partisans. If we can move beyond labelling someone as inconsistent or hypocritical, we might be able to talk about our true convictions and move toward compromise.
To begin, let’s return to pro-choice. The logic behind a woman’s right to choose is that no one else should be able to dictate what a woman does with her own body. Forcing her to maintain a pregnancy is tantamount to forcing a complete lifestyle change. The argument tends to be especially vocal on the points of rape and life-threatening pregnancies. As this view holds, if a woman will greatly suffer psychologically or physically through carrying on a pregnancy, then a woman should not be forced to continue that pregnancy.
The logic goes on to include financial and lifestyle concerns for those women who cannot afford a baby. Thus, the decision to carry out a pregnancy should be the mother’s choice, not the government’s. Throughout this train of logic, the morally significant entities in consideration are the woman and the government. The fetus is not considered an entity until a certain stage in the pregnancy or after birth, at which point even many of those who espouse pro-choice beliefs determine that abortion would be inhumane.
For the pro-life position, there are three morally significant entities at play. The government, the pregnant woman, and the baby. At all stages within the pregnancy, the pro-life person considers the fetus to be a human being that must be considered in the equation. There are two people affected by an abortion, and a pro-life person would argue that the government’s job is to uphold the law between two people. In America, an individual’s rights are only limited by the extent that one person’s rights impede on another.
The pro-life person sees the government’s role in stopping abortions in the same way that he or she would see the government’s role in discouraging and prosecuting one citizen killing another. In both scenarios, there is the one taking action, the one acted upon, and the government as mediator. To a certain extent, people have a right to their own bodies, but that right ends once it affects another person.
So, again, the question is: at what point is a person’s life substantially threatened and thus requires the government as mediator? Can a fetus’s life really be threatened? Are the unvaccinated a substantial threat to others? How many morally significant entities are there?
Now, when it comes to the vaccine, many pro-choice people have become pro-life (pro-mandate), while pro-life people have become pro-choice, frustrating both parties because of the seeming ideological duplicity.
It would seem that the person who is pro-life when it comes to abortions should also be concerned with saving lives when it comes to the vaccine. It would also seem that the person who is pro-choice should be concerned about an individual’s right to choose for abortions and vaccines alike.
The answer to why neither side is being hypocritical lies in the number of entities they count as important in the equation.
For the vaccine pro-choice side, the entities are only the person and the government. The government forcing a person to do something to his or her body is unacceptable because the government is not standing as a mediator between people, but rather a dictator over an individual.
For the vaccine pro-life (pro-mandate) side, the entities are threefold: the person who does not get vaccinated, the person who might contract COVID from that person, and the government. The government role is as a mediator, protecting the life of one person the same as it would in the sense of a murder.
So, again, the question is: at what point is a person’s life substantially threatened and thus requires the government as mediator? Can a fetus’s life really be threatened? Are the unvaccinated a substantial threat to others? How many morally significant entities are there?
My question to you now is this: How do you answer those questions? If you were to answer them differently, would you be evil? If the people sitting next to you answered them differently, could you still speak to them?
I ask you to consider these questions in the hopes that the argument no longer lies between good and evil people. Rather, let the argument be between people who answer important questions differently.
Both of these issues are highly important and involve life-and-death consequences, making it clear why so much contention bubbles around them. But, it is also important that we communicate civilly in order to move forward with appropriate policies.
For me, I want to explain how I think about these COVID vaccine mandates. In my view, there are only two entities at play: the government and the unvaccinated. This is not because I want to ignore the health of the population or my neighbors. Instead, it is because I do not see the health of my neighbors to be substantially threatened by those who are unvaccinated.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the main concern was whether or not hospitals would be able to handle a mass outbreak of COVID. The most in danger were those with pre-existing conditions and the elderly. COVID was scary because people could have it and be asymptomatic, unwittingly able to pass on the virus to the most vulnerable. That level of uncertainty of who could give the virus to whom led to a push to wear masks in order to protect others. Masks are their own controversy, but it was generally believed that wearing a mask could stop an infected person from spreading the virus but not stop a healthy person from getting the virus.
Finally, vaccines came out, which raised the hopes of herd immunity. However, whether vaccinated or not, a person can still contract and spread the virus. So, the vaccine cannot guarantee herd immunity, but it has proven to reduce the deadliness of the virus for those who are vaccinated. If the vaccine provides protection against COVID effects, but it does not stop the communicability of COVID, then getting the vaccine does not protect others. It protects you. Likewise, remaining unvaccinated does not endanger others, it endangers you.
To me, it is clear. The vaccine is not a question of mediating between one person and another, but rather of an individual’s health. Government mediation is not required in a situation where the rights of one person are not substantially impeding on those of another.
On the other hand, as I wrote in the beginning of this piece, when one person’s rights do substantially impede on another’s, the government should step in. For that reason, those who want to regulate abortion hesitate to agree with a “my body, my choice” mentality because they see a pregnant woman as two bodies, one of whom cannot voice his or her choice about his or her body.
Both of these issues are highly important and involve life-and-death consequences, making it clear why so much contention bubbles around them. But, it is also important that we communicate civilly in order to move forward with appropriate policies. To do so, it may take some mental reframing, like asking ourselves what counts as a substantial threat to life and who counts as a morally significant voice in the conversation. These may be the questions that lead to true understanding and compromise.
