I don't think they're exactly the same. One mandated you put something in your body as a preventative, whether you ever get sick or not. The other is the result of a choice that the person already made for themselves and wants out of the consequences.
The equal would be mandated "let nature run its course" when you get sick after going out and participating in activities that had potential to get you sick. You may have been cautious but there was still a chance of getting sick. (I actually heard many suggest this for those who chose not to vaccinate) Another equal scenario would be mandated birth control so women don't get pregnant, even though we know women still get pregnant on birth control and it can cause a lot of other issues.
I support women making their own choices concerning pregnancy. I also think for those situations that it is an elective procedure it should come out of their own pocket or private funds that people opt in to make donations, as opposed to the government financially supporting groups that perform abortions.
This is one reason prolifers are against the government having abortion as a right. They don't want to indirectly support something that they fundamentally disagree on and consider murder.
Of course, by not letting people make their own decisions they are forcing their beliefs onto the rest of the population. I get it somewhat. If you considered something to be murder or morally wrong that the rest of the world thought was ok, would you do everything in your power to fight against it and stop it? It hardly seems fair, though, to those who don't consider it a full life yet and therefore not murder.
I don't think we will ever find a satisfying solution that doesn't force one side to accept things that they believe are wrong in some way. I know it's not an easy decision and nobody ever makes these decisions lightly.
