Which matters more, personal freedom or preserving life?

With the Republican Party in a nationwide full-court press trying to end abortion, it struck me that there is a relevant argument concerning personal freedom and vaccination to be made here.

Republican-led states seem to think they can use their governmental powers however they see fit, hence the wave of draconian abortion laws. But what if Democrat-led states followed suit and used their governmental powers to start mandating that all eligible citizens be vaccinated? Republicans are willing to sacrifice the personal freedoms of pregnant women to preserve human life. Democrats could argue that sacrificing the personal freedoms of everybody through enforced vaccination would have the same effect — to preserve human lives.

Since both arguments involve government control over our bodies and the preservation of life, it begs the question: which matters more — the preservation of human life, or personal freedom? If you feel the preservation of human life is paramount, then you should have no objection to allowing government to force you to be vaccinated for the greater good of us all. What’s good for the goose, after all, is good for the gander. If, however, you believe in limited government and personal freedom, then it is neither appropriate to allow government to mandate vaccinations, nor appropriate to allow them to interfere in the choices of a pregnant woman. It’s your call, but it is wholly inappropriate to use government to control someone else’s choices without being willing to sacrifice your own.

Anthony Miell

Iowa City