Why the Pro Choice and Pro Vaccine Mandate Positions Conflict

A dialogue about principles

A: Did you hear about Biden’s new vaccine mandate? 

B: Yeah… What do you think about it?

A: I support it! The unvaccinated pose a threat to themselves and other unvaccinated people. Even though there’s been many breakthrough cases, the symptoms are very mild for vaccinated people. So, I’m really glad I’m vaccinated. But it frustrates me so much when people say like, “Oh not getting vaccinated only hurts the unvaccinated.” That’s totally not true! The entire American healthcare system is being clogged down by unvaccinated COVID cases and that’s affecting the vaccinated population. Many vaccinated people now can’t get elective surgeries they need for things like cancer. 

B: I feel that. I wish all eligible people would get the vaccine, but I’m having a hard time justifying the mandate. I don’t feel like I can support the mandate and hold the other political positions I do without betraying my political principles and being hypocritical. 

A: …what? What do you mean by that?

B: Well like… Okay, what principle do you invoke to justify the mandate?

A: Hmm… I think I support it because, if a person doesn’t get the vaccine, that hurts other people. If it only hurt you not to get it, then fine. But since it affects other people in a bad way, I think it should be mandated that you get it. 

B: That’s what libertarians call called that the NAP, or the non-aggression principle. I like that principle, but I don’t think people rely on it for other political positions they hold. I’ve been thinking about how my position on abortion conflicts with the NAP. Aren’t you pro-choice? 

A: Yeah?

B: Do you think there should be any threshold on when pregnant women can get abortions?

A: Hmm I think most people support it up until the start of the third trimester. I feel uncomfortable with the government interfering with women’s healthcare decisions at all. It’s strange having mostly old men in Congress dictate what women can do with their bodies. But I’d tentatively say that I support it until the third trimester too. 

B: I get the same creepy vibes about that. I support legalizing abortion all the way up until the fetus or the baby - whatever you wanna call it - exits the womb. 

But here’s the thing. The available scientific evidence suggests that fetuses as young as 24 weeks can survive outside of the womb given proper medical supervision. Some fetuses are viable even earlier! 24 weeks falls within the second trimester so, if you support legalizing abortion up until the third trimester, then you’d support aborting potentially viable fetuses. 

Let me run this thought experiment by you. Say there’s a 24-week-old premature but viable baby sitting in the neonatal ICU. Do you think it should be legal for women to stab it? 

A: Stab the baby??? Uh, definitely not! That should stay illegal. What’s your point with that?

B: What principle do you invoke to justify your support for the criminalization of premature baby stabbing? 

A: If someone stabbed a baby that would really hurt the baby. I think the same principle I invoked to justify my support for the vaccine mandate would apply. The NAP?

B: Yeah. Earlier, you invoked the NAP to justify the vaccine mandate. I’m trying to figure out how you can hold that principle and support the legalization of abortion until the third trimester. 

Say there are two identical 24-week-old premature but viable babies. The first one, Jim, is chilling in the neonatal ICU. The other, Pam, is still in utero. Jim gets stabbed to death - he doesn’t feel any pain though because the stabber kills him instantly - and Pam gets painlessly aborted. What’s the difference in the amount of harm perpetuated against Jim and Pam? 

A: Uhhh… I mean they both died, right? So… And they are the basically the same baby?

B: Yeah, literally the difference is that one is in the ICU and the other is in the womb. 

A: I guess the amount of harm is equal for both Jim and Pam since they both died painlessly. Isn’t this a pro-life argument? How on earth does this relate to the vaccine thing?

B: I mean, yes, pro-life people make similar observations, but I’m employing them for a totally different purpose. You invoked the NAP to justify your support for the vaccine mandate. That means you don’t think people should be legally able to do things that hurt other people. You also invoked the NAP to justify keeping premature baby stabbing illegal. 

What I’m hung up on is what I find to be a contradiction. You don’t think it should be legal to stab Jim, but you do think it should be legal to abort Pam. But you conceded earlier that the amount of harm perpetuated against Jim and Pam is identical. 

You’re using a harm-based principle to support one action and oppose another even though both of the actions involve the exact same amount of harm. Isn’t this an inconsistency? What’s the distinction that makes a difference between the two cases? 

A: Ah I see what you mean. The distinction to me is that Pam is still inside the womb. Like Pam is still part of a pregnant woman’s body. So…

B: Ah okay. So, that distinction - whether the baby is inside a pregnant woman’s body - makes a difference because it activates the principle of bodily autonomy? 

A: Yeah, that sounds right. 

B: Let’s call the principle of bodily autonomy PBA for short. You think that abortion until the third trimester should be legal, even though it potentially perpetuates the same amount of harm as premature baby murder, because abortion involves the violation of the PBA. Fair?

A: …yeah… 

B: Why don’t you think that about vaccines? Why doesn’t forcing someone to get a vaccine violate the PBA in a similar way?

Like the probability that an abortion late within the second trimester will result in the termination of a viable baby like Pam can’t be that different from the probability that an unvaccinated person’s COVID transmissions will result in the death of another unvaccinated person. So why does the NAP take precedence in the vaccine mandate case and the PBA take precedence in the abortion case?

A: Because the total quantity of harm is likely different in the vaccine case. Not mandating vaccinations will result in more pain and death than legalizing abortion. It’s not just about how many people die, it’s about how many other unvaccinated people get sick too. And how many people can’t get elective procedures because the healthcare system is so clogged up with unvaccinated COVID patients. 

B: I thought you’d say that! So the NAP takes precedence in the vaccine case for you because of the harms posed by unvaccinated people directly against unvaccinated people via COVID transmission and indirectly against vaccinated people via healthcare system clogging? 

A: Right. I’m getting a little tired of this conversation. 

B: I know, I know. Last point! 

I did some research on obesity recently. Did you know that obesity related cases account for approximately 140 billion - BILLION - dollars in medical care costs annually in the US? Obesity dramatically increases people’s chances of contracting an array of fatal diseases, particularly heart disease. One study I saw estimated that 18% of deaths among 40-85 year olds in the US are attributable to obesity related conditions. Think about that. That’s like one in five!

The decisions those who become obese make therefore hurt themselves, through disease and death, and the non-obese, through the clogging of healthcare infrastructure. I think obese people are fairly analogous to the unvaccinated because members of both populations hurt others - the non-obese and the vaccinated, respectively - primarily through indirect systemic effects. They both significantly burden the healthcare system. 

Given the harms perpetuated by the non-obese against the obese, should the federal government mandate that all food distributors serve/sell only food products that meet the FDA’s recommended caloric and nutritional specifications?

A: No? 

B: …why though? 

A: I don’t know really. I guess the difference is that COVID is an epidemic and obesity isn’t? And it takes longer to get obese than to get sick with COVID?

B: Does that distinction, one based how condensed the harm perpetuation is time-wise, always make a difference? Like take the abortion of Pam. Pam died instantly. Plus, many medical professionals do think obesity is an epidemic…

A: I don’t know. I think I’ve had enough of this. Can you just like say what you’re trying to accomplish? Like are you trying to convince me to oppose the vaccine mandate?

B: Okayyy. I’m not necessarily trying to get you to oppose the mandate. I’m encouraging you think through what your political principles are and whether your positions on various political issues abide by those principles. I think that’s a pretty important thing. And I’m sorry if I’m coming off preachy or whatever. I’m still trying to figure out what my own principles are and, in the process, I’ve realized I don’t really know what I stand for! And that bugs me.

Like if I don’t identify my principles, I can’t know if I’m being inconsistent or hypocritical. I am way more likely to fall prey to partisanship and get swept up by the crowd if I don’t spend time developing an internally coherent set of political principles. People in positions of power use all sorts of media to influence how people without principles vote and think. I want to figure stuff out for myself so I’m not as able to be influenced like that. 

I want to be my own person.

Note from Marshall: Shoutout to my good friend Ram for going back and forth with me about these topics for two full hours this morning. His insights and willingness to engage with me refined my views and made this post possible. I also would like to apologize to my other friends in the group chat who Ram and I deluged with countless messages.