How many people identify as "pro choice" here"?
And how many are "pro choice" only if it's about something THEY believe in?
You can't be pro choice about peoples control over their own bodies on some subjects and not others.
Right to choose in the abortion context is sometimes connected to promoting the health of the woman. Given the choice has no effect on community health it has no offsetting considerations.
Choices that have deleterious consequences for public health are different from abortion. Not getting vaccinated and also not masking or social distancing result in harm to others. In a subtle way refusing vaccination and other socially conscientious measures actually violates the principle of nonaggression that libertarians tout. Walking into a public area in a reckless manner that may spread disease is not much different from engaging in an attempted mass shooting. Isn’t such aggressive action warrant for self-defense by the victims? Government is warranted to step in and adjudicate, mandating vaccine passports for restaurants and cruises, and mandating vaccines themselves.
Beyond the aggression to others, potential harm to self and societal cost in terms of economy warrants more assertive government action. Just as driver licenses and seat belts are mandated to drive, vaccination and established proof of said vaccination are not out of line to be expected of citizens.
It's a fallacy of false equivalence to compare vaccination against disease to abortion..
The history of the concept of abortion as it applies to the politics in the US is quite interesting. Since it is so controversial a topic I will let you do the research on this. Start by Googling the terms and see where you get.
I have the right to do what I want with my hand. It's my hand after all. But, I don't have the right to slap you with it. I don't have the right to steal with it. When my actions affect other people, that's when there is an issue with "choice."
@powder: Of course I have that "choice." But, the point being made is whether a person's choice negatively affects another person, or society, and to what extent; and whether that choice should be limited, or removed.
You seem to be comparing a pro-choice argument when it comes to abortion to a pro-choice argument when it comes to other things (specifically It appears you are referring to vaccinations, and this is faulty).
Another person choosing to have an abortion cannot be compared to a person choosing to not get vaccinated. If not getting vaccinated only affected the person not getting vaccinated, that would be one thing. But, when people refuse to get vaccinated it also affects others as some cannot get vaccinated and high levels of unvaccinated people allows a virus to mutate and become even more dangerous.
I think that I see what you're hinting at here, so I will just say:
If I choose to have an abortion, it is my body, my choice. If, somehow, my choosing to have an abortion could cause other women around me to miscarry, then the choice would rightly no longer be mine alone.