You Cannot Be Pro Choice and Pro Vaccine Mandate

7/9/2021

Volume 20, Issue 7

Since the Texan legislature passed their ‘Fetal Heartbeat’ abortion legislation last week, I’ve had to endure a bunch of cringy takes from classmates cosplaying as Americans. As much as Texas is beginning to resemble a ‘shithole state’, the sky remains safely above our heads in Melbourne.

The dry, uninteresting observation that almost none of us have any connection to Texas whatsoever didn’t prevent ‘my body my choice’ from swamping my Instagram feed. I found this tiresome, precisely because I agree with it; precisely because we all agree with it. Pretending that you are part of the thin red line holding the breach against the Victorian Taliban is annoying. It minimises the real courage of women in the American South, and a hundred other places besides, who face the very real prospect of their bodies being taken from them.

Here, bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.

Bodily autonomy, of course, is the fundamental right which abortion recognises. It is a foundational premise of our law. Ironic then, that many of the people who vocally support this principle when it pertains to overseas abortion rights, are also those in favour of vaccine mandates right here at home. The two are weird co-travellers in the left-wing political space I inhabit.

Obviously, ‘vaccine mandate’ doesn’t mean that a policeman is going to shoot you with a dart gun. However, the policy as outlined in Victoria does mean that people who have not received a vaccine will be excluded from large parts of public life.

Here is where the comparison with abortions is useful. Proponents of the exclusion policy smilingly say they are not forcing anybody to take a vaccine. However, imagine the justified outrage if the Victorian Government were to announce they were not banning abortions…but you’re not allowed in the pub if you’ve had one.

The natural disgust you feel imagining such a world springs from its utter disregard for a person’s right to their own body. Why, then, is this response absent when it comes to vaccine mandates?

One obvious reason is that, unlike an abortion, declining a vaccine can make you a disease vector. However, as fewer and fewer people who want vaccines are unable to get them, this justification is wearing thin. In light of the Delta variant, we can no longer even bet on vaccines preventing us from contracting COVID, meaning the vaccinated are also vectors. Nevertheless, the vaccinated are incredibly safe from serious harm.

Despite this, the hatred of the unvaccinated persists. It is socially permissible to hold them in contempt, and entirely appropriate to exclude them from society, merely because they made a certain decision regarding their health. We, as the majority, are blithely giving ourselves the authority to tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

The obvious lack of substance in many of my classmates’ political positions is disappointing. Despite loudly proclaiming their purported values on social media, for many of them, the commitment to bodily autonomy is only skin deep.

Publius is a third year JD student

If you would like to submit a response to this, or any of De Minimis’ articles, email [email protected]

The views in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of De Minimis or its Editors.

Angry female

7/9/2021 09:04:37 pm

You are making a complete false equivalence by likening abortions and vaccinations.... you clearly misunderstand both issues. Vaccinations carry public health implications. Abortions don't. End of story.

Publius

7/9/2021 09:08:15 pm

I addressed this point in paragraph 8. Even so, do 'public health implications' justify any restriction, no matter how draconian?

Abort me but don’t give me covid

7/9/2021 09:24:12 pm

This debate isn’t normative. Put the context back.

‘Do the “public health implications” of covid justify limiting access and participation to the unvaccinated?’

7/9/2021 09:30:58 pm

Once the rest of us are vaccinated, probably not.

7/9/2021 09:16:50 pm

I see op’s point, but this is only not a false equivalency when the comparison is approached at this very high level of generality.

Also, while a vaccinated person can catch and transmit covid, they are less likely to do so than is an unvaccinated person. That is a reason to restrict social participation to the vaccinated.

Also also, as we are talking about the states, vaccine mandates have a rich history there, including in the south. Source - a us southerner who could only go to school once vaccinated.

Uninformed but not this uninformed

8/9/2021 12:07:07 am

I think this article is vile because it entirely glosses over the cruel social implications of removing a person's reproductive freedom and treats those as equivalent to the currently very minor inconveniences associated witch opting out of a vaccine. But I think it was written in good faith, so props for holding what you know to be an unpopular conviction with bravery.

That said, this seems like an edgy take without much point: as you yourself acknowledge, the unvaccinated pose a serious, even fatal, risk to others by being a significantly higher vector risk. No person seeking out abortion poses any risk to any other person (and if you believe that a cluster of human cells not even sapient enough to drool is a person, you and I are at a total philosophical impasse). Furthermore, the advocacy that pro-vaccination advocates do is (usually) based strongly upon sound medical science and good moral conscience: the same cannot be said for anti-abortion protesters, who use bullying tactics far more readily for what is an extraordinarily difficult process to undergo in socially conservative communities due to its implications that you have ignored in this article. Thanks for your time, mate, but multiple commenters have already pointed out a great many errors of reasoning in this submission. The embarrassment you should feel doesn't even touch the shame many women are unfortunately made to feel in places like Texas for seeking to exercise their human right to healthcare, but all the same I hope it doesn't sting too much.

ANTI-VAX RAGE?

8/9/2021 07:47:21 am

Good comment.

The author's strange comparison and edgy take begins to makes more sense when you notice it's the same fella who wrote 'THE SOFT RACISM OF THE VACCINE BLAME-GAME' about a month ago.

I do wonder if Publius is lashing out in reaction to the surge of vaccination in Victoria lately.

In the future, Publius, I would make just two suggestions: Tone down the bad attitude. You are unlikely to convince many (if any) of your classmates when you describe them as annoying, cringy, and hypocritical.

On that last point, be more original when describing hypocrisy:

In your last article: "for many in this so-called progressive city, a commitment to racial justice is skin-deep..."

In this article: "..for many of them, the commitment to bodily autonomy is only skin deep."

You can do better.

hear hear

8/9/2021 09:16:35 am

i agree with your comments and take on the article but commenting on the actual writing style (the skin deep metaphor thing) is a bit tf. it's definitely not the most alarm-raising issue in the article for me at least :P

Disgusted

8/9/2021 09:21:45 am

Does the author have a uterus?

Pregnancy isn't contagious, how utterly offensive.

like_clockwork

8/9/2021 09:27:20 am

huh.... seemed about time for de min to drum up something incredibly inflammatory and harmful just to try and make themselves relevant and edgy again. nice to see that we've made the step from racism to sexism this time !!!

Desperately Seeking Relevance

8/9/2021 09:39:06 am

Genuinely not convinced the author believes a word of what they’re saying, just another desperate attempt to get people talking about their shit publication

oh no

8/9/2021 09:36:37 am

re: 'Victorian Taliban'

It's not the Texas Taliban, it's the Texas Ku Klux Klan. It's not American Sharia, it's Christian Theocracy. Stop trying to pin Christian U.S. patriarchy, misogyny, and white supremacy onto Empire's bogeymen.

- Shailja Patel

HARD AGREE

8/9/2021 10:32:37 am

Publius seemed so concerned about their racial soap box in their article a month ago, yet continued to contribute to the harmful anti-muslim narrative that provides a scapegoat for these awful practices which white-supremacist texas is solely responsible for.

Vile

8/9/2021 10:19:19 am

Let me guess a man wrote this

Incredible Stuff

8/9/2021 10:21:03 am

I'd love to say this was a new low for De Min but sadly this is, at worst, a horizontal move. This kind of dross suggests a man who will deservedly never succeed in politics despite his best efforts

Ambivalent

9/9/2021 11:27:55 am

I don't think 'never succeeding in politics despite one's best efforts' is the sick burn that you think it is

A person with a uterus

8/9/2021 10:38:03 am

This is a disgusting dismissal of reproductive rights. I cannot believe that this was published. This is harmful and should be taken down. Access to abortion is something that is of concern to Australian uterus owners.

Harmful?

8/9/2021 03:55:39 pm

It's certainly a subpar article, but I don't think it's even remotely harmful lol. Apart from MLS nerds, no one else reads De Min. And even if they did, I doubt this article would convince a reasonable mind to side with it.

Nathan Kan

8/9/2021 11:22:13 am

Save for the obviously inflammatory style of the piece - I think OP brings up a fair point - albeit I do not necessarily agree with the headline and attempting to substantiate it would require a far more in-depth philosophical discussion and public health analysis. A serious defence of this stance is possible, but this piece is clearly politically orientated and so much of the feedback is of kind. OP is also pro abortion and not advocating anything to the contrary to be fair.

There is an interesting question as to where we draw the line re bodily autonomy. Okay...we mostly seem to agree on pro-abortion (to some reasonable extent), so how far does should this protection of bodily autonomy stretch? What sort of public health risks would justify an infringement of bodily autonomy? Does the current COVID context meet that threshold? If so, what is the nature of those infringements and are they commensurate with the risk? Just one of many deep questions that are difficult to answer and that OP treaded very, very shallowly in.

Obviously OP has come to a determination in their mind that being pro-aborition and pro vaccine mandate is a hypocritical stance (presumably on the basis of reflection on the sorts of questions noted above). OP made some legitimate arguments re low risk of harm, being a vector anyway..etc. You could add the fact that new variants could be expected to hang around for years and we will need booster shots every year. Do we restrict peoples freedom everywhere until everyone is vaccinated with their boosters every 6 months? Probably not. Either way, I don't think OP is convincing anyone reasonable of their headline in the space of a couple hundred words.

I don't think it matters what gender OP is, and it is probably unwise to speculate on it because it makes no difference to the strength/weakness of the argument. In a vacuum, abortion and vaccination is a false equivalency, but the comparison brings up fair questions about where we draw the line - and finding good reasons to soundly accept one conclusion but not the other. So, there is a genuine and, in my view, contestable issue raised that I think many readers will miss upon account of knee-jerk reactions (of which OP has much to blame them-self if they were after any serious response).

SOLID

8/9/2021 12:22:43 pm

H1 review

Solid response

8/9/2021 07:13:40 pm

Top response Nathan Kan.

yeah nah, this ain't it

8/9/2021 11:49:32 am

Oh no, how terrible that people demonstrated their support for the plight of women overseas. Just because someone doesn't have a direct connection to a place doesn't obliterate their right to care (the author also probably isn't aware of the number of people with uteruses at the law school who have used abortions/considered them - the line is more direct than they suggest).
Goodness comes from people who see beyond themselves, care for others when the outcome doesn't have a direct impact on their life. Time for a dollop of empathy, I reckon.

Wtf

8/9/2021 12:16:46 pm

“Despite this, the hatred of the unvaccinated persists. It is socially permissible to hold them in contempt, and entirely appropriate to exclude them from society, merely because they made a certain decision regarding their health. We, as the majority, are blithely giving ourselves the authority to tell them what they can and cannot do with their bodies.”

REGARDING OUR**** HEALTH

You can’t catch an abortion fam. And wtf is wrong with showing solidarity with women elsewhere and highlighting one of MANY injustices in the world? Do men even pay attention to this type of stuff if not for the vocalism of their women friends? They don’t even seem to acknowledge the news. Guys from MLS may be more in tune with current affairs but fk lemme tell you - average male out there ain’t stressing. So yes we need to be vocal. Because too many don’t care.

Stunning and Brave

8/9/2021 12:30:48 pm

While I don’t endorse the points raised, I do endorse the courage Publius has shown in publishing this article.

As a third-year female JD student, I believe there is a dangerous culture of social justice yes-men/women and do-gooders at the law school. This creates a reluctance of conflict from those that have differing views from the status quo and prevents valuable discourse from taking place.

I encourage future articles of this nature to challenge this environment for the greater good of the student body.

praise

8/9/2021 01:57:52 pm

Are you sure you haven't internalised your misogyny? (sarcasm).

Totally agree with your sentiment. Of all people, I think MLS students need their views challenged more often.

Courageously anonymous?

8/9/2021 04:05:17 pm

If this is not satire - may I ask where the courage is in publishing this anonymously? If Publius wanted to really stun anyone he would put this under his own name..

Anti-social-lynch

8/9/2021 04:35:57 pm

I think it's a pretty smart decision to avoid the social justice mobs from committing a social lynching of the author.

irrelevant

8/9/2021 04:39:35 pm

That's fair. But the point made was that it's courageous - being too afraid to put your name to your views (even if it is a "smart decision") does not quite ring with bravery, does it?

3rd party

9/9/2021 11:33:24 am

Sounds like bravery to me. And smartness.

keep going

8/9/2021 04:31:34 pm

Also share your sentiment - courageous of both Publius and De Minimis. Hope De Minimis remains committed to publishing a diverse range of views, no matter how unpopular they may be.

HERE HERE

8/9/2021 05:09:23 pm

Here here! As a second-year female JD student, I agree with this. Too often a handful of women claiming to speak for the mythical sisterhood have the loudest voice and silence even slightly out of the box views through shaming and ad hominems.

While I don't agree with the conclusions of this article, I appreciate that it makes one think more about their moral justifications for contentious issues.

R u ok

8/9/2021 05:24:09 pm

If getting the jab ended up with you having a kid, I'd be pro choice as well. But it doesn't. Instead you get immunity from a life threatening disease, and prevention at spreading it to others.

Science - google it

9/9/2021 01:09:03 am

This article is wrong on a lot of levels, but let's unpack the science a bit.

A high enough percentage of unvaccinated individuals does present a significant risk to vaccinated individuals and those vulnerable groups who (genuinely) cannot get vaccinated.

No vaccine is 100% effective and, yep, vaccinated individuals can still be carriers of the virus. That's why vaccine programs rely on herd immunity to be effective. Above a certain threshold, say 80% for the delta variant, herd immunity reduces the risk of infection and transmission to such an extent that the spread of the virus and serious disease is effectively prevented - protecting both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. But below that threshold, the virus can still transmit effectively and cause serious disease in both vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (yes, vaccinated people are less likely to experience serious disease, but remember, no vaccine is 100% effective). Vaccine hesitancy has always existed in low numbers, but once you start seeing >10-20% of the population choosing not to get jabbed, largely due to misinformation and misjudged risk, there starts to be a problem.

The whole idea of herd immunity is to protect the whole community from a serious disease, but particularly those vulnerable groups who cannot get vaccinated even if they want to. This includes babies and children too young to be vaccinated, cancer patients, and those with compromised immune systems and other chronic illnesses. These are the groups most at risk of infection and fatal disease if we don't hit that herd immunity threshold. For me, these groups are not simply expendable.

I get the point of the article, but it seems uninformed. Choosing not to get vaccinated is not just a simple choice of personal/bodily autonomy. It's a choice that directly impacts those most vulnerable in our community, as well as the rest of us who have chosen to get vaccinated.

I'm not suggesting we forcibly jab people. My main issue is with the prevalence of misinformation and misjudged risk about the vaccine and so I think we should be focussing on effective education campaigns. If people are genuinely informed then ok, they can make that decision (although I don't think many truly would). But if they've gone down a Youtube rabbit-hole or are just relying on what their mates have said, and would prefer to rely on experimental horse medicine, then yeah, I see a problem there and I don't think enough has been done to address that.

A grad with too much time on their hands

15/9/2021 12:02:07 pm

After reading this article I immediately scrolled down hoping to find this (or some variant of this) comment. I'm glad I did.

The central point of this article is actually rebuttal - almost everyone sensible agrees that medical procedures (including vaccinations and the right to access an abortion) should be conditional on the informed consent of the patient + freely available. UNLESS there is an overwhelming public interest factor. OP accepts that there is no such factor prohibiting abortions and then draws an analogy between abortions and vaccination, let’s break this down. OP must necessarily convince the reader that there is no public interest factor, otherwise they simply are not analgous. You can accept every other premise of OP’s article (which I actually do) but if you do not accept the scientific point OP makes – that the public interest factor is not sufficient present – then you should not accept the conclusion OP draws.

This scientific point, the absolute centrepiece of this article, is shit. I’m sorry it just is. There is no serios thought put into it and no discussion of the very complex phenomena that you see when looking at the way a virus spreads through a population. I frankly thought it was trolling because there was not a single mention of very simple concept of herd immunity – if OP was trying to have a good faith debate they would rebut the opposition position at its best and not a straw person position of it.

At the very least, this article should have read something like “I know my limits about scientific knowledge, but if what I say about the risk of non-vaccinated people is correct then the following analogy is valid … blah blah”. This article doesn’t even pretend to be self aware or know the limits of its own scientific knowledge – it is unfair to except the author (or me) to know all of the science behind vaccination. It is not unfair to expect them to be aware of their shortcomings.

This article is bad. You are not promoting good discourse by writing this.

My body, my choice unless it means spreading COVID

9/9/2021 04:03:40 pm

Deciding what happens to my body (re pregnancy) does not affect the health of ANYONE else. Having a safe, well-research and reviewed vaccine does SO MUCH for public health (and everyone's human right to health). This is why vaccines are the golden ticket out of lockdown and why the world HASN'T fallen into moral corruption and chaos since permitting abortions.

I cannot express how actually disgusted I am by this article. As people have much more calmly expressed above OP makes a completely false equivocation. This is true if the claims are assessed against scientific, human rights or sociological benchmarks.

MY BODY, MY CHOICE UNLESS IT MEANS SPREADING COVID

9/9/2021 04:07:02 pm

And to follow up on this comment I am extremely disappointed in the De Minimis team for publishing this. Yes, you may not agree with the sentiments but by publishing controversial pieces like this is how the whole news media is pushed further to the right as more air time is given to the more 'controversial' topics. If this was a pro-vax, pro-choice abortion article I doubt I would have been sent it by multiple people.

De Minimis was right to publish this

9/9/2021 08:17:39 pm

I agree with your first comment, but am quite disturbed by your second. De Minimis, as a student publication should post all views, sentiments and opinions of students no matter what political, social or economic stance they take. I can see that this post has created a negative reaction by some, which is great because it provides students an opportunity to voice their disagreement and create discourse on this topic.

You mentioned the need for media censorship, which is exactly what De Minimis should avoid and quite frankly is dangerous. The last thing the law school needs is to become a far-left echo chamber (some would even argue it already is). Personally I enjoy being exposed to both left and right leaning journalism as it allows me to form my own independent view on issues, even when I don’t agree with what is published.

I would like to think that at the law school we are educated and mature enough to listen to different points of view and not have such visceral reactions to ‘controversial’ topics. I don’t think we should be concerned about students reading such an article and taking it as gospel (as we do in the general media as you alluded to).

What I see here is a student posting their own views, and other students commenting with their own opposing views and criticism. Discourse. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I would like De Minimis to relax their screening policy so students are exposed to a broader spectrum of views and have an opportunity to discuss such issues further.

Comments are closed.

You Cannot Be Pro Choice and Pro Vaccine Mandate

Archives