My Body—My Life
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By James Nordin
August 19, 2021
Simone Biles, arguably the greatest American gymnast in history, ruffled a few feathers recently in discussing her experience with the foster care system. She made comments to the effect that she understood the motivation of the pro-choice supporters who say, “My body—my life.” She was trying to emphasize how difficult the foster care system is for children who can’t be cared for because of the circumstances of their biological parent(s). These children are frequently the result of unexpected, unplanned and even unwanted pregnancies. She then went on to say something to the effect that she wasn’t talking about the anti-mask, anti-vaccine supporters who also say, “My body—my life.”
How do two groups use the same principle in different circumstances to support and defend very different actions?
The usually unstated principle behind, “My body—my life,” is that individuals have the right of free choice; neither government nor social pressure should have any bearing on the right to freedom of choice. Gary Busey and Ann Margaret can choose to risk their lives by not wearing motorcycle helmets. It is their free choice.
Many, if not most, of the pro-choice supporters do not support the exercise of freedom of choice by the anti-mask, anti-vaccine supporters. Anti-mask, anti-vaccine supporters do not support the freedom of choice advocated by pro-choice supporters. What is the distinction that makes the same principle righteous in one circumstance and abhorrent in another? How does a person support and oppose the principle at the same time?
The focus of the pro-choice group is one of personal responsibility. They argue that their decision impacts no one but themselves; others in society are neither harmed nor helped by their decision. Because the decision is personal and impacts only parties to the decision, it is not a legitimate issue for government action or social pressure. It is a private decision. Pro-choice advocates are not necessarily pro-abortion. They simply do not want their freedom of choice limited.
Others argue that the undeveloped fetus that might be aborted is not a party to the decision and therefore government has the right to act in the interest of the unrepresented party.
The focus of those resisting wearing masks is theoretically the same. If they choose to risk their lives with the COVID-19 infection, it is a private decision (although many of them believe COVID-19 is a hoax). They believe the decision to wear masks and/or to be vaccinated is their decision and affects no one else. Because the decision is personal and (they argue) only impacts parties to the decision, it is not a legitimate issue for government action.
Health officials argue that by not wearing a mask and/or receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the anti-mask person increases the probability of infection. Further, by continuing to not wear a mask, the anti-mask person increases the probability of infecting others with whom the anti-mask person comes in contact. Thus, the issue is not simply personal choice, but protection of the public, and the government has the right to act in the interests of the public at large.
The U.S. Supreme Court long ago agreed with the principle of freedom of speech but recognized that such a freedom is not unlimited. The famous example provided is that, while in principle, individuals are free to yell, “FIRE!!” in a crowded theater, the impact of that freedom (the panic and chaos and possible trampling of individuals trying to run out of the theater) was such that free speech had to be limited in such instances. Stated differently, individual freedom of choice does not supersede social responsibility or social cost.
Motorcycle helmet laws are in place to protect motorcycle riders and the public from the cost of almost always serious accidents. Seat belt laws protect the drivers and passengers in automobiles but also reduce the likelihood of serious consequences of accidents and thus the public cost of caring for those seriously injured. We routinely require individuals to protect themselves to avoid the costs to society from their injury(s).
I don’t know if Simone Biles was thinking this way, but her comments about the personal and social costs of foster care were a statement about the social costs of not having a choice.
I am pro-choice and pro-mask and am fully vaccinated for a common reason: I recognize the social cost of the impact of private decisions. Freedom of choice is precious but personal preference should not outweigh the social costs (our social responsibility) for the impacts of our decisions.
Author: James Nordin, adjunct professor in the MPA program at Sonoma State University, is a retired federal civil servant with more than 33 years of service as a grants and financial manager and program director for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. He has a passion for social equity and created and endowed ASPA’s Gloria Hobson Nordin Social Equity Award. Jim received his BA from Knox College, his MPA from Roosevelt University and his DPA from the University of Southern California and can be reached at [email protected].




(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...
My Body—My Life
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.
By James Nordin
August 19, 2021
Simone Biles, arguably the greatest American gymnast in history, ruffled a few feathers recently in discussing her experience with the foster care system. She made comments to the effect that she understood the motivation of the pro-choice supporters who say, “My body—my life.” She was trying to emphasize how difficult the foster care system is for children who can’t be cared for because of the circumstances of their biological parent(s). These children are frequently the result of unexpected, unplanned and even unwanted pregnancies. She then went on to say something to the effect that she wasn’t talking about the anti-mask, anti-vaccine supporters who also say, “My body—my life.”
How do two groups use the same principle in different circumstances to support and defend very different actions?
The usually unstated principle behind, “My body—my life,” is that individuals have the right of free choice; neither government nor social pressure should have any bearing on the right to freedom of choice. Gary Busey and Ann Margaret can choose to risk their lives by not wearing motorcycle helmets. It is their free choice.
Many, if not most, of the pro-choice supporters do not support the exercise of freedom of choice by the anti-mask, anti-vaccine supporters. Anti-mask, anti-vaccine supporters do not support the freedom of choice advocated by pro-choice supporters. What is the distinction that makes the same principle righteous in one circumstance and abhorrent in another? How does a person support and oppose the principle at the same time?
The focus of the pro-choice group is one of personal responsibility. They argue that their decision impacts no one but themselves; others in society are neither harmed nor helped by their decision. Because the decision is personal and impacts only parties to the decision, it is not a legitimate issue for government action or social pressure. It is a private decision. Pro-choice advocates are not necessarily pro-abortion. They simply do not want their freedom of choice limited.
Others argue that the undeveloped fetus that might be aborted is not a party to the decision and therefore government has the right to act in the interest of the unrepresented party.
The focus of those resisting wearing masks is theoretically the same. If they choose to risk their lives with the COVID-19 infection, it is a private decision (although many of them believe COVID-19 is a hoax). They believe the decision to wear masks and/or to be vaccinated is their decision and affects no one else. Because the decision is personal and (they argue) only impacts parties to the decision, it is not a legitimate issue for government action.
Health officials argue that by not wearing a mask and/or receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, the anti-mask person increases the probability of infection. Further, by continuing to not wear a mask, the anti-mask person increases the probability of infecting others with whom the anti-mask person comes in contact. Thus, the issue is not simply personal choice, but protection of the public, and the government has the right to act in the interests of the public at large.
The U.S. Supreme Court long ago agreed with the principle of freedom of speech but recognized that such a freedom is not unlimited. The famous example provided is that, while in principle, individuals are free to yell, “FIRE!!” in a crowded theater, the impact of that freedom (the panic and chaos and possible trampling of individuals trying to run out of the theater) was such that free speech had to be limited in such instances. Stated differently, individual freedom of choice does not supersede social responsibility or social cost.
Motorcycle helmet laws are in place to protect motorcycle riders and the public from the cost of almost always serious accidents. Seat belt laws protect the drivers and passengers in automobiles but also reduce the likelihood of serious consequences of accidents and thus the public cost of caring for those seriously injured. We routinely require individuals to protect themselves to avoid the costs to society from their injury(s).
I don’t know if Simone Biles was thinking this way, but her comments about the personal and social costs of foster care were a statement about the social costs of not having a choice.
I am pro-choice and pro-mask and am fully vaccinated for a common reason: I recognize the social cost of the impact of private decisions. Freedom of choice is precious but personal preference should not outweigh the social costs (our social responsibility) for the impacts of our decisions.
Author: James Nordin, adjunct professor in the MPA program at Sonoma State University, is a retired federal civil servant with more than 33 years of service as a grants and financial manager and program director for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. He has a passion for social equity and created and endowed ASPA’s Gloria Hobson Nordin Social Equity Award. Jim received his BA from Knox College, his MPA from Roosevelt University and his DPA from the University of Southern California and can be reached at [email protected].
Follow Us!