I love the argument that they are trying to control us or take our rights away. The same morons that won't wear a mask want to tell women what they can and can't do with their own body.
There is a massive fundamental difference between the two examples. The difference is
externalities. Let’s use Wikipedia’s definition:
In economics, an externality is a cost or benefit that is imposed on a third party who did not agree to incur that cost or benefit.
If a fetus is a separate human life, then when a woman chooses an abortion she *is* making a choice that also affects others (because the fetus has no say in the decision nor the wherewithal to protect themself).
If unvaccinated people pose no risk of spread to vaccinated people, then when an unvaccinated person chooses not to wear a mask they are *not* making a choice that also affects others (because the other person now has the option of vaccination themself).
It’s highly questionable if the government should be allowed to mandate laws purely for the benefit of the person keeping or breaking said law. Seatbelts are a good example of a law which very likely should not be a law. The government should arguably not be allowed to intervene into an action that has no externalities.
(The bolder assumptions are hypothetical and for the point of debate. I believe the answers to both are more nuanced, but I tend to agree that we are at a point nationally where mask mandates should be ended but am in favor of disallowing most abortions).
