Preempting the flaw in your strawman doesn’t invalidate it. A woman choosing to abort a pregnancy has no bearing on anyone but her. In contrast, the anti-vaccine crowd both directly, and indirectly, contribute to the propagation of disease.
Your right to bodily autonomy stops at society’s doorstep, which is broadly agreeing that the unvaccinated don’t get to participate in the non-essential aspects of society, otherwise furthering the risk to everyone else without reason.
Isn't the baby also affected by that choice?
Legally, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses (like spermatazoa and ova, and unlike babies which are not involved in this) are not persons.
A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are genetically fully human, and are distinct individuals from the mother. So saying "has no bearing on anyone but [the mother]" is... legally correct, but morally much more grey. And saying "it only affects one person" is also pre-empting the objection to the strawman.
Define “genetically fully human” and “distinct individuals” and provide an argument as to why each is ethically relevant.
"Distinct individual": Genetically different from the parent, and not just different with a transcription error.
Why it's relevant: Because "it's her body" and "it affects nobody else" aren't relevant arguments when it's not just her body, when there's another individual there. Now we have to have a real moral/ethical discussion, and we can't short-circuit it with dismissive strawmen.
But I'm fairly sure you knew all of that. I suspect that you just want to keep using the strawmen to avoid having the actual ethical/moral discussion.
> like spermatazoa and ova, and unlike babies which are not involved in this
Do mean some fetuses are people aka babies, or all fetuses are distinct from babies and hence not persons.
Er, why not? The fact that it affects what is legally a non-person entity in whom the State has a legitimate interest is why abortion rights have different parameters later in pregnancy, so why wouldn't it be the consistent that vaccination having public health impacts that affect the life and health of other actual people is relevant?
At what point is a person a person? "at birth" seems arbitrary.
All lines dividing up creation into named categories and entities are arbitrary.
That one is arbitrary is not an argument against it and in favor of a different (and equally arbitrary) one.
> That one is arbitrary is not an argument against it and in favor of a different (and equally arbitrary) one.
True, but that's not my aim. I am instead attacking the notion of personhood, which was a dependency of your own argument, not mine. If there are no meaningful indicators of personhood, the only way to avoid aborting a person is to set a limit at a point where a foetus is still likely to be a non-person, because detailed gauges of personhood are otherwise unavailable.
I think a better direction for this argument would be to burden you with the question; why aren't we allowed to terminate once a child is born? pre-empting the argument "but then there are no health risks / autonomy considerations" - does that mean all abortions are done for purely health-risk reasons?
then why do so many pro-choicers also hate vaxxers? And please don't say "that's different, it affects other people!"