For many years, the phrase “My body, my choice” has been the mantra of the pro-choice camp in the abortion wars. It’s encapsulated the belief that no one should be able to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body. “Keep your hands off of my body” has been a similar slogan, capturing the same theme.
In an ironic twist, the mostly pro-life camp of people who reject the current COVID-19 vaccinations have co-opted the “My body, my choice” mantra for themselves. Mirroring the pro-abortion camp, they say the government and employers have no place in telling them what they can or can’t do with their bodies, including the requirement to be vaccinated in order to hold certain jobs, travel on public transportation, or visit certain businesses.
It’s the strangest of conundrums.
We have pro-life people using an argument they’ve fought against for decades on one side. And we’ve got pro-choice people arguing against the argument they’ve used for decades. And neither seems to realize the shaky ground they’re standing on.
When it comes to abortion, the pro-life camp is anti-choice and the pro-choice camp is anti-life. In this case, choice has to do with reproductive rights and life has to do with the life of the conceived child.
When it comes to vaccination, the pro-life camp is pro-vax and the pro-choice camp is anti-vax. In this case, choice has to do with the right to make medical decisions without coercion and life has to do with the lives of those endangered by potential infection by those who are unvaccinated.
In both cases, a person’s ability to make decisions about what is done to and inside of their own bodies is pitted against the community’s responsibility to protect the lives of the vulnerable.
To be honest, both pro-life and pro-choice sides on both issues have their merits. It is a scary thing to have decisions about what you can and can’t do with your body taken away from you by the government or your employer. That’s a dangerous road to go down. At the same time, it’s a horrific thing for people to choose autonomy at the cost of the lives of others. That’s an ugly road to go down.
This is a true conundrum.
When you have people who have been pro-life when it had to do with abortion becoming pro-choice when it comes to vaccination, their pro-life argument loses credibility. And when you have people who have been pro-choice when it had to do with abortion becoming pro-life when it comes to vaccination, their pro-choice argument loses credibility. It seems that one should be either consistently pro-life or consistently pro-choice. And yes, I know, abortion and vaccination can be considered as similar as apples and oranges. But the dissimilarities are fewer than the basic similarities in the arguments.
Either you’re in favor of a person’s right to choose what is done with their body without coercion or you’re in favor of the community protecting the lives of the vulnerable from the harmful choices of individuals.
Currently, our options are either choiceless life or lifeless choice. Ugh. Talk about a situation where you have to lose in order to win. Neither option is appealing. No wonder we’ve struggled over this debate for so long.
In the best of worlds, a third option would be obvious and unanimous: CHOOSE LIFE.
Giving people the ability to choose is always dangerous, because they will always have the option to choose death, whether it’s because they choose to have abortions or to forego vaccinations of for some other choice.
The question is: Which is our greatest value as a culture: autonomy for self or life for others?
Throughout history there has always been legislation to protect life. We see this throughout the Scriptures, where not just murder is forbidden, but where we see the responsibility to protect neighbors from harmful animals or a dangerous ditch or even a mildew-infected house. Personal freedoms are restricted when they endanger the lives of others. But these restrictions aren’t absolute. You can have a harmful animal as long as you restrain it. You can dig ditches as long as you keep people from falling in them. You can have your own home as long as it isn’t infested with something that will also infest the homes of neighbors.
This leads me to conclude that some minimal legislation is always necessary to restrain the careless actions of those who willfully and selfishly endanger the lives of others. But beyond those minimal restrictions, we trust people to choose the way of life over the way of death, knowing there will always be those who choose death.
As Moses said to the Hebrew people as they stood on the edge of the Promised Land: “See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. … This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” (Deut. 30:15, 19-20).
Did God know that many would choose death instead of life? Yes. Did he still give them/us the option to choose? Yes. Did he urge them/us to always choose life whenever possible? Yes.
My personal motto is “Live love; love life.” Life is the goal. Love is the means. (And remember there is no love without choice, though that choice need not be limitless.). So whenever and wherever possible, I choose to restrict my own choices out of love for others in order to protect their lives. And that goes way beyond the abortion and vaccination debates. This is the core ethic of my life.
[The accompanying image is by editorial cartoonist John Darkow. He owns the copyright to it.]