Without politicizing the inevitable "My body, my choice" paradigm shift, I generally see one as an internal issue and the other as a potential external one...meaning if a person is pregnant the only way she may impact me could be taking up more space in an allotted seat on a plane or on a Beaver Stadium bench. Potentially transmissable germs are different. Defining what is or isn't alive and/or the moral and financial repercussions of deciding other people's lives is not something I choose to want to wade into. It feels l8ke everything in the US right now can be a circular argument without compromise- so why bother? Eventually (hopefully) cooler heads will prevail...
Responding calm and rationally here....
1. COVID had/has a death rate similar to below the flu for a huge swath of the population. If the vaxx works, then those who are at greater risk, should get the vaxx. Not really understanding how a 23yo, (let along a 5yo) for example, with a statistical 0 risk from COVID being mandated to get vaxxed matters to anyone. If you are vaxxed, and the vaxx works, you should not care about the status of anyone else.
2. The world is full of laws based on common sense morality and the concept of not injuring others. It is clear, scientifically, that there is no difference between a newborn and an unborn baby late in pregnancy. To say you don't want to wade into morality, regarding the death of a person that cannot speak, IMO is problematic. If you want to debate about things in the first trimester, for instance, fine, but the defense of unfettered late term abortion, (and not saying you are doing this) is illogical, and criminal.
Summarizing my assessment of your statement: It's potentially okay to mandate a medical treatment with no long term efficacy/safety data to combat a disease with a 95% overall survival rate (and near 0 for healthy/working age or younger) because it spreads via respiration, but when it comes to the definitive ending of a human life, it's personal and not something that should really be debated. In one case, there is a small chance of death. In the other, a 100% chance.
Humbly, and I guess this is where the debate really starts and finishes. The P-C side sees an unborn baby as less-than-human and therefore undeserving of any rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I'd submit that OB science and technology like ultrasounds make the 'clump of cells' and 'not a person' arguments increasingly hard to make.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for the rational discussion.