Opinion Editorial

First off, let’s put to rest the ongoing myth that the coronavirus vaccine is associated with or is the actual mark of the beast that Apostle John records in the book of Revelation, chapter 13. The mark of the beast occurs after the rapture of the church, not before. If the vaccine were the beast’s mark, it would mean we missed the bus; we did not rise to meet Jesus in the clouds. In addition, there would be thousands upon thousands of unexplained disappearances, the threat of war between many nations, and civil wars raging within various countries. The economy would be in total disarray, either on the verge of collapse or collapsed altogether worldwide. The church’s rapture triggers the seven-year tribulation period, the time when the antichrist comes on the scene.

Now, the purpose of this article is not to sway one person or another to either take the coronavirus (COVID 19) vaccine or refuse it. People must weigh those options for themselves. However, on September 9, the President of the United States signed an executive order that mandates the vaccination for all federal employees. The White House also insists that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration press businesses with 100 or more employees require the vaccine. While employees can submit waivers for medical and religious reasons, the approval bar is likely strict and high. Employees who refuse to take the vaccine could face consequences that may lead to their potential termination. It is confusing why a government, one where the current administration supports pro-choice, has opted to take the right of choice away from the people.

If you are seeking an abortion, then the position is “it’s the woman’s right to choose.” In other words, it is a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body without regard for the life that dwells in her womb. If you refuse the coronavirus vaccines, the growing answer is “you don’t have a choice.” However, in this conflicted mess we call Washington D.C. politics, Americans are losing their right to choose what happens to their bodies when it comes to the vaccine. Now, the argument is that vaccine mandates will help save lives and slow or perhaps stop the spread of the virus. However, even vaccinated people have contracted the virus or one of its variants, and sadly, some lost their lives. On the other hand, and in all fairness, I am confident that the vaccine has helped minimize the virus’s impact for many people and enabled them to avoid hospitalization.

While we can appreciate the government’s moral concern for everyone’s welfare regarding the coronavirus, I find myself at a loss to explain why there appears to be little to no moral concern for the unborn when it comes to abortion. In other words, if removing a person’s right of choice not to get the vaccine is an effort to preserve human life, then should that same logic apply to abortion; remove a person’s right of choice to preserve human life yet to be born? Since the start of the global pandemic, 4.8 billion people have died from the coronavirus worldwide, and as striking as that number is, it pales compared to the more than 33 billion abortions around the globe in 2021⁽¹⁾.

Therefore, are vaccine mandates merely a political tool to say or show that the government is doing something? Perhaps so because it would explain how government defends pro-choice on one hand and disregards it on the other? Or, are vaccine mandates an honest effort to preserve life? If that is the case, then should such a level of concern for human life extend not only to those born in the world but also to those in their mother’s womb? The answer should be a resounding “Yes!”

^{_{(1) Statistics obtained from Worldometers.info.}}

---