My Body, My Choice: Is Being Anti-Vax Like Being Pro-Choice?

Is refusing the vaccine akin to refusing pregnancy?

By hijacking the “my body, my choice” mantra, anti-vaxxers not only draw a false analogy—refusing vaccination is not like refusing pregnancy—but expose themselves as hypocrites.

Key Points:

  • A fetus is not unquestionably a person; those put at risk by the unvaccinated are.
  • A person’s right to bodily autonomy might entitle them to avoid a major health risk (pregnancy), but not a minor inconvenience (eg vaccination).
  • Unless you are immune-compromised or allergic, there are no genuine risks associated with any of the COVID vaccines.
  • Thus, unless you are immune compromised or allergic, vaccine refusal is not morally equivalent to choosing abortion (or morally acceptable).

In my last post for A Logical Take for Psychology Today, I explained why the “my body, my choice” argument—which has become a defining feature of the anti-vax movement—doesn’t work as a defense of the choice to willingly refuse to get the COVID vaccine. But some may have found that phrase familiar. “My Body, My Choice.” Indeed, anti-vaxxers have borrowed it from the pro-choice movement in an attempt to simultaneously highjack the phrase and try to catch their rivals in a double standard. “If you are in favor of a woman’s right to refuse a pregnancy,” the argument goes, “you should be for my right to choose to refuse the vaccine.” The idea is that they are essentially the same kind of choice.

But does this argument really work? Is the pro-vaccine but also pro-choice advocate really engaged in a double standard? Or is this anti-vaccine argument vacuous?

Giving the argument its due

At first glace, the argument makes some sense—or, at least, you can understand how it makes sense to the person giving it. From the point of view of someone who is staunchly pro-life, abortion is choosing to do something to your body that costs the life of another human being. So, in their view, if you are pro-choice, you must think that your right to bodily autonomy trumps another person’s right to life. If that’s true, then it seems that it is moral to refuse the vaccine, even if doing so actively endangers the life of others. This, they maintain, answers vaccine advocate’s argument that a person is obligated to get vaccinated, even though they don’t want to, because it protects others (and prevents the development of variants).

Upon scrutiny, however, this argument fails. It’s essentially an argument from analogy, but arguments from analogy only hold when the things being compared don’t have relevant dissimilarities. And the dissimilarities between abortion and vaccine refusal are legion.

The issue of fetal personhood

First, the thing being sacrificed in an abortion—a fetus—is not unquestionably a person. I understand that the pro-life advocate thinks it is, but that does not make it so. On the other hand, the “thing” put in danger by a person’s decision to not get vaccinated is, unquestionably, other persons. They are full-grown; they are fully-minded; there is no debate. And harming something that might be a person is not morally equivalent to harming something that definitely is a person

Or, at the least, this is clear: If the pro-choice advocate doesn’t think a fetus is a person, they are not being hypocritical by being against vaccine refusal. In being pro-choice, they don’t think their right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of another person; they think it trumps the rights of a clump of cells. Consequently, they can criticize the decision to not get vaccinated, without contraction, because that decision does endanger other persons.  

The issue of bodily autonomy

There are some pro-choice advocates, however, who do think that (even if) a fetus is a person, the mother’s right to bodily autonomy outweighs the right to life of the fetus. Might they be logically forced to support the choice to refuse vaccination, even if it endangers the life of others?

Again, the answer is no. Why? Because there is still a difference between a fetus and an adult/child. Even if a fetus is a person, a fetus is reliant upon the mother for survival; even if she gives the child up for adoption, pregnancy requires nine months of the mother’s bodily resources and often includes morning sickness, medical risks, and a host of other likely possible complications. If the mother is not willing to spend her bodily resources this way, the argument goes, she is not obligated to (even if she willingly had sex). The right to bodily autonomy supersedes. If someone else needs, for example, my kidney to survive—I am not morally obligated to give it to them. Likewise, the argument goes, for a pregnant woman’s bodily resources.

A vaccine, on the other hand, unlike a pregnancy, is a minor inconvenience and comes with very little risk. The most likely “side effect” is the effects of your immune response—soreness, fever, etc.—for about a day. And unless you have an allergy or are immune-compromised—two factors that those giving vaccines always screen for—after a day you won’t even notice. (And side effects from vaccines always occur in the first month or so. Worries like “we don’t know the effects after 10 years” are just fear-mongering hyperbole.) 

I can understand the argument that a person’s right to refuse a major strain on their bodily resources for months at a time can trump another person’s right to life. This is why the choice to refuse the vaccine if you are allergic to its ingredients or are immune-compromised, makes sense. But the argument that a person has a right to risk the lives of others by refusing the vaccine because they “don’t want to feel puny for a day” makes absolutely no sense. Your right to not feel ill for a bit is not more important than someone else’s right to live.

Misinformation kills

The same holds for refusing vaccination in the name of misinformation about the dangers of vaccines. Yes, if thousands had died from the vaccine, or if the “rush” entailed that they were not properly tested, there would be legitimate reason to refuse. But none of that happened; thousands didn’t die, MRNA vaccines against coronavirus have been researched for decades, and while the “rush” did involve many methods—like making many steps that would usually happen sequentially (like testing and production) happen simultaneously–there were not “shortcuts” through safety and efficacy protocols

The same holds true for excuses like “I had a friend who had a stroke after being vaccinated,” or “what about those young women who had blood clots from the J&J vaccine?” Given the number of people vaccinated, and the background rate of strokes in the general population, some people will have strokes after getting vaccinated. That doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. (As I would tell my logic students, correlation doesn’t entail causation.) Far more women have blood clotting issues after taking birth control than the J&J vaccine (.09% vs. .00009%), and more people die from taking Tylenol or aspirin each year (by far!). “The risks of vaccination” are not a legitimate reason to refuse the vaccine and risk the lives of others, because there are no real risks.

Oh, the irony

Not only is this anti-vax argument fallacious, by hijacking the “my body, my choice” mantra in an effort to catch their rivals in a contradiction, the anti-vax crowd has instead caught itself in one. If it is moral to put others in harm’s way to avoid the minor inconvenience and non-existent risk of vaccination, it is undoubtedly moral to do so to avoid the major inconvenience and actual risks of pregnancy. If you are for a person’s right to choose to refuse the vaccine because of it’s “dangers”, you must be for a woman’s right to refuse pregnancy. Since such a large portion of the anti-vax crowd has spent years arguing against abortion, all they have done is expose their own hypocrisy.

Full FDA approval of the vaccines is expected very soon. When that happens, the last marginal reason for being vaccine hesitant will disappear. Don’t expect the anti-vax crowd to back down, however. When the UFO doesn’t show up to pick up the cult members, the cult members don’t admit they were wrong; they believe even more fervently that they were right. FDA approval will just make the anti-vax crowd move on to some other fallacious excuse to refuse the vaccine and risk the lives of others. 

Copyright 2021, David Kyle Johnson 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s