Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
It's interesting that Pro-life and Pro-mandate doesn't overlap more than it does.
From the Anti-mandate crowd, there is the argument that there should be no outward control on decision making concerning your own body. This would seem to align with Pro-choice.
From the Pro-mandate crowd, there is a desire to control a body to protect the common good, which would align more with the Pro-life stance.
But what I see in the media, and on forums such as these, is that the type of person who is Pro-mandate is generally Pro-choice, and viceversa. A lot of the arguments that each side are using appear to go against previously held beliefs.
Or am I seeing this wrong?
|
Yes. Pro-mandate and pro-choice are largely utilitarian positions. Basically do what you want as long as it doesn't place a significant burden on society at large. Things get judged on a case-by-case basis and opinions can change based on circumstances. If COVID becomes much less serious over time (either through pre-existing immunity or effective antivirals) to the point where it's not really a significant burden on society, then vaccination status will no longer really matter to the vast majority of people.
Being antivaxx mandate and pro-life at the same time is more incongruous. The justification for being against requiring vaccination for anything is that no one can tell you what to do with your body no matter how much harm it causes other people. But then how can that logic coexist with the notion that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and have no control over their own body? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it's because these opinions are rooted far more in emotional reactions rather than in any coherent philosophy or ideology.