Issues like vaccine mandate, abortion rights showcases the hypocrisy of liberals and conservatives since the underlying issues is the same: individual freedom vs greater good of society.
 |
| Source: Shutterstock |
While waiting at a traffic signal I saw a woman holding a poster, “My
body, my choice.” My initial reaction was confusion. What is the issue
she is standing for? Was she supporting abortion rights or against the
vaccine mandate? However, I chuckled at the irony of the situation.
This phrase ‘My body, my choice’ has been used by both liberals and conservatives for two disparate issues like abortion rights and vaccine mandate respectively. However, at its core, the issue remains the same — does the state have the right to impede individual freedom under the behest of the ‘greater good’?
Let us look at the similarity between both the issues from the perspective of the individual and the state.
Abortion Rights
Abortion rights: Individual’s case for abortion rights
Abortion rights is a highly polarizing topic in political and social circles. Supporters of abortion rights argue based on individual freedom. Every woman has the right to decide the future of her pregnancy, whatever may the reasons or circumstances. Since the costs (financial, health, etc) of having a child is predominantly on the woman, the choice to bear a child should be hers only and not on the state.
Abortion rights: State’s (potential) case against abortion rights
In 1980, China Communist Party (CCP) mandated the infamous ‘One Child Policy’ where the government limited one child per family. At that time, it was considered a prescient policy as there were growing fears of famines due to overpopulation albeit without much evidence. However, China is now concerned with the aging population and shrinking working class thanks to the policy. In May 2021, CCP changed to a ‘three-child policy’ to combat rapid depopulation in the country.
Although the evidence of population growth on the economy is tenuous, partly because it is difficult to isolate the impact of population on growth, many economists believe that an aging society is not good for the economy. However, what is not controversial is the impact of economic growth on the lives of people. It leads to better social outcomes like lower maternal mortality rate, higher income, access to basic amenities like water, food, and shelter.Consequently, one can make the case that depopulation is going to harm society in the long run.
Thus, from the state’s perspective, it is in the interest of society for women to have more children. In other words, the state should mandate women not to abort their pregnancy for the ‘greater good’ of society.
Vaccine Rights
As surprising as it sounds, the state mandating vaccine on its citizens is similar to abortion rights for women. Let me make this argument using the same lens as before — individual and state’s perspective.
Individual’s case for vaccine freedom
Every individual has the right for making choices for themselves. If they believe that vaccine is not good for them in the long run, it is their prerogative to refuse the vaccine, whatever be the reason or circumstance. There is hardly anyone who denies the rights of the individuals is impeded by mandating vaccines for everyone.
The key question is then: what means does the state employ to achieve its end?
Some states are providing incentives like cash to citizens to get vaccinated. Other states have employed stricter practices like banning unvaccinated people from accessing public spaces like theaters and restaurants. In extreme cases, states have suspended employees who refused the vaccine. Specifically, France suspended 3,000 health workers without pay for refusing the Covid vaccine; around 9,000 New York City municipal workers were put on unpaid leave for refusing to comply with a Covid-19 vaccine; Singapore will no longer pay the Covid-19 medical bills for people “unvaccinated by choice.”
State’s case for vaccine mandate
The state (and liberals) support such practices such draconian measures for the following reasons:
- Individual benefits: Since the vaccine reduces the likelihood of severe hospitalization and deaths, it is in the best interest of the individual to take the vaccine, whether they agree with it or not.
- Societal benefits: It is for the ‘greater good’ of the society to mandate vaccination for the following reasons:
- If everyone is vaccinated, the pandemic will be over and we all can go back to our pre-COVID days of walking to public spaces without masks.
- Vaccination reduces the possibility of mutations of newer variants. Unvaccinated people risk extending the pandemic by becoming hosts to newer variants of concern.
- Unvaccinated people threaten countless immunocompromised and other vulnerable populations.
- Since unvaccinated are more likely to be hospitalized with severe complications, it might overwhelm the health care systems.
Conservatives’ defense against vaccine mandate: Individual benefits
Pronouncing that vaccine mandate is for your good is like saying to a pregnant woman that having a child is good for you, whether they agree or not. Just like a woman has the right to abort their child for some reason, an individual has the right to refuse the vaccine. The costs (they would argue benefits) are going to be borne by the individual.
Further, no one knows the long-term effects of the recently developed mRNA vaccine. However, no vaccine comes without side effects. There are cases of mysterious clotting disorder among vaccinated population. The numbers are not alarming but if people are scared for some reason, increase awareness instead of employing state coercion.
Conservatives defense against vaccine mandate: Societal benefits
The argument of ‘greater good’ for society requires deeper scrutiny. First, Israel was one of the first countries to vaccinate its entire population by early 2021 and yet as we enter 2022, it has undeclared lockdown. Everyone getting vaccinated is not going eradicate the virus as it can mutate while the immunity from the vaccine dips over time.
Second, there is limited evidence that the virus mutates to a deadlier variant in unvaccinated with a higher probability compared to vaccinated individuals. However, if this is truly a concern, the states (high-income states) should shift their focus to Africa instead where only 9% of people in the continent have been fully vaccinated. Remember, the Omicron variant was first detected in South Africa.
Third, the argument that unvaccinated people are a threat to society is blown out of proportion. Research shows that vaccinated people are just as likely to transmit the virus as unvaccinated people. Should we ban vaccinated people as well to protect the vulnerable population?
The fourth point, I concede, is a valid argument. Unvaccinated people can overwhelm the healthcare system if the cases rise rapidly and pose health risks to medical professionals. Does this justify the state to take draconian measures such as heavy penalties, suspension from work or barring them from public spaces?
Instead, the state can take measures with a specific sunrise and sunset clause — if daily new cases are greater than x, the state is allowed to take restrictive measures for unvaccinated people. However, once the daily new cases are below x, these restrictions would be eased for everyone including the unvaccinated people.
Two questions on abortion rights
Imagine it is 2050 and we find conclusive evidence that having fewer childbirths adversely affects the economy. Further, there is evidence that conceiving children makes a mother happier in the short term.
- Would you support revoking the abortion rights for women as it is in their and society’s best interest to conceive a child (despite their reservations on long-term impact)?
- If yes, would you support the withdrawal of abortion rights against women? Worse, mandate women to have at least 2-3 children?
- If not, is that because you believe individual rights trump the ‘greater good’ argument?
Similar questions on vaccine mandate
It is 2021 and we find conclusive evidence that unvaccinated people negatively affects the economy. Further, we have evidence that getting vaccines is better in the short term.
- Would you support mandating vaccines for everyone as it is in their and society’s best interest to get vaccinated (despite their reservations on long-term impact)?
- If yes, would you support the vaccine mandate for everyone?
- If not, is that because you believe individual rights trump the ‘greater good’ argument?
If you agree with the lady’s banner ‘My body, my choice’, then it should not matter whether it is in favor of abortion rights or against the vaccine mandate. She believes the individual choice is superior to state coercion on both the issues: abortion or vaccine rights. You may agree with her or not. But if this is right, that is right. If this is wrong, then that is also wrong.
PS: To reassure the readers, I am doubly-vaccinated (and about to get a booster shot as I write this), believe in human-caused climate change and trust science (but not always scientists).
No comments:
Post a Comment