I’m personally very pro-choice, but my beliefs have a lot to do with humility (I don’t have much stake in the issue so I should maybe listen to those that do) coupled with my beliefs about moral philosophy (rights accrue to those who can appreciate them, and fetuses can’t really appreciate much of anything). The “bodily autonomy” argument has never really persuaded me, although a lot of people who I respect very much find it very persuasive.
I’m personally very pro-mandatory-vaccination, because I think that your right to decide what happens with your body should be balanced against how that exercise of those rights affects others.
I don’t claim enormous philosophical consistency, but in this case, I think there’s some.
My question is for folks who accept the bodily autonomy argument in one of these instances, but not the other. That is, for folks who are pro-choice because of bodily autonomy, but pro-mandatory vaccination; or for folks who are anti-choice, but anti-mandatory-vaccination because of bodily autonomy. What distinction do you draw between the two cases such that bodily autonomy applies in one but not the other?