A moral and ethical thought experiment based on headline issues of the day: What is the parallel between abortion being illegal by government decree (or not legal to be funded by tax dollars), and the mandate to receive certain medical therapies? One may be prohibited. The other prescribed. Might the moral construct be similar? You are not permitted to make a choice for yourself, your body, your future on the basis of The Good (or The Preference) of Society, The Many. Autonomy (Self-Determination) vs. Social Justice (or Societal Good).
One may argue that there are negative societal effects from either situation and choice. Some do not want to pay for actions that they consider unhealthy, immoral, unethical, harmful. Some demand actions by or upon another that per their belief systems or convictions avoid similar negative outcomes.
As a corollary, if you have a child that you are poorly prepared to care for, educate, mentor, support, etc, then you create a negative effect on society – financially, socially, systemically. (One could also make the climate change argument). Writ large, what is the effect of billions of persons added to the planet under these conditions?
Conversely, what if society could simply decide that You are not fit for parenting, or that society is harmed by the addition of your offspring… such that abortion becomes a prescribed treatment for you? Or mandatory sterilization? (Read up on that history.) Or the ready removal of your offspring to be raised by The State due to your “unfit” status – which might be determined by political affiliation?
What is the moral/ethical distinction between forced (or prohibited) reproductive therapies versus other mandated medical therapies? The rationales might be the same. In fact, the harms of the addition of billions of poorly raised children are potentially more negatively impactful (numerically and longer term) upon Society and The Planet than the current viral threat. For every forced medical therapy upon a certain person, should that entitle that person to make a mandate upon another until no one can cause anyone any potential negative societal consequence… in the name of equality and fairness?
It is interesting to witness the cognitive dissonance and philosophic gymnastics to claim My Body/My Choice in one arena by those of varying political and moral convictions, while denying it to others. “But you can harm ME by not receiving The Therapy!” Yes, but you and your offspring may harm me and all of society in many other ways.
Do we devolve into a society of blame, fear, hatred, vengeance, coercion and violence in the pursuit of Absolute Control and Safety? How much CAN be controlled? Down to what small, personal levels of choice,… and to what global, geographic extents? And at what cost? Or is it a more enlightened path to permit others to live their lives as long as they do not directly harm us, to live to mutual benefit by voluntary association, to avoid the costs and consequences of coercion, to seek out calm discourse and understanding, and to ultimately mind our own business?
Hard choices for many. Given concepts like non-aggression, the harms of mob rule, and unintended consequences, the choices become clearer. – mtr