[ZeroGravitas]

> > the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions

Well, not from the "governments are either allowed or not allowed to tell people to do things" angle.

From the "what do medical experts suggest we do to minimize unnecessary death and suffering" point of view it's possible to be consistently on the same side though.

[caeril]

It's definitely not consistent from the bodily autonomy angle, though. And that's a pretty major angle, considering how deeply we're connected with our bodies.

Personally, I think anybody who advocates for abrogation of bodily autonomy is an absolute monster, whether an anti-abortionist, a pro-vaccine-mandateist, or an anti-recreational-druggist.

Our bodies are all we have. This is the most important freedom we hold.

"If you want to keep this job you'll stick this needle in your arm" is no different, morally, from "If you want to keep this job you'll stick my dick in your mouth." And tens of thousands of HR departments tasked with preventing the latter will now rush to enforce the former. Absolutely disgusting.

[iammisc]

There's a difference between asking people to do something and asking them to do nothing though. In general, bodily autonomy is important and this the best abortion defense in my opinion as an anti abortionist.

[xboxnolifes]

While there is a difference, bodily autonomy is about the right to make decision around your own body, not the right for your body to run on it's own. So I would argue it is not a good argument as you say.

[iammisc]

But your body runs according to the dictates of nature, not solely your will.

For example, my body often breathes even when I don't particularly will it. I also cannot stop the process of digestion with my mind. If I were to ask for the 'right' to stop digestion by asking a doctor to sever my intestines, it would be good for the government to then charge such an irreputable doctor with assault and maybe murder.