Pro-Life, Anti-Mask?

Strathos · Nov 20, 2020

SolaChristian said:
Oh make no mistake it's as much of a disaster in my country as it is in yours. We are a full-blown third world country with a massively corrupt and inefficient government. To be fair, we did have a lockdown early on which helped to slow the spread, but even our experts are admitting that it didn't "prevent" a single infection, it merely delayed it. That's sort of my point. And we did have an unusually low mortality rate, I guess because of our young population. But even in your country with a very high mortality rate, those 200 000 odd deaths compared to the usual 2 800 000+ deaths per year? Still nothing compared to abortion stats. That's what my perspective boils down to - If (and yes I acknowledge this is an "if") it were possible to conclude beyond all doubt that abortion is, in fact, the murder of a person, then it is literally the most evil and horrendous abhorrent thing that humanity has ever engaged in, far outweighing anything else, even the Holocaust, by a massive margin, and cannot be compared to a completely natural and normal virus that has contributed only a small fraction of our usual yearly deaths. There are literally more homicides per year in my country than Covid deaths.

So what, it's all a numbers game to you?

On the masks again - I recognize that you are convinced that they work, as are most people, but where are the peer-reviewed studies showing that they work? I have seen some that demonstrate quite the opposite. As I said, how many people wash their masks after every use, don't touch the outside, wear proper surgical masks, cover mouth and nose everywhere they go? Basically no one if we're being honest. So that makes them effectively useless, yet you're treated like a leper for not wearing one. My goodness. But also, there's the whole politicization of the pandemic, I think that's what bothers most people more than just having to wear a mask. I wear one, and I try to do it properly and I obey all the restrictions, but that does not mean that I agree with all of the restrictions.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818

Strathos · Nov 20, 2020

grasping the after wind said:
Yes, I surely the hypocrisy of , on one hand. insisting that one has control over one's own body even if it means one is at liberty to kill another being but then insisting, on the other hand, that government has the right to tell one what one must do with one's body because it might save the lives of others.

You seem to imply that I'm advocating for certain positions as opposed to pointing out the contradiction between them.

SolaChristian · Nov 20, 2020

Strathos said:
So what, it's all a numbers game to you?

I'm sorry but that's not a very genuine response. Really, that is quite petty actually. As a Christian I am deeply affected on an emotional and spiritual level by the reality of lives lost. But what I absolutely despise about Democrat Covid rhetoric is that people take all those emotions into discourse around policies and none of the rationality that we need to actually make wise decisions.

Obviously when we're talking about having policies and lockdowns that are going to negatively impact every single aspect of human life for years to come, we ought to consider if the risks outweigh the benefits. This is not ageism. This is not being uncaring, in fact, this is considering what the best way is that we can both save lives, but also not at the expense of other lives. When I say "lives" I also don't mean merely the condition of having a body that is conscious. Democrats of all people should know that quality of life is more important than just being alive. When I look at these numbers, and I see that the young population is basically unaffected, and that the total deaths are really not much higher than they are normally, am I not logically justified in calling into question the fact that we are decimating all aspects of life merely to delay the inevitable? You can call that a numbers game if you want to, I'd call it cost-benefit analysis in the context of policies, which takes place in every other sphere of life as well. E.g., your genius "defund the police" idea. Or health experts who use "YPLL" (years of potential life lost) as a measurement when making decisions. By the way, since you raised the point of a "numbers game", as a person who wants abortion to be legal because apparently that lowers the number of abortions, how does it feel to engage in inconsistent reasoning when encountering perspectives you don't like?

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant. My point is that it is legitimate to think about the mortality rate of Covid-19 before we start imposing things on people and violating their liberties. Similarly, it is wise to consider the mortality rate and prevalence of abortion when making policies, although there are other factors to consider as well, like legislating morality as I mentioned.

pitabread · Nov 20, 2020

High Fidelity said:
Looking at Japan and South Korea whose societal underpinnings aren't Judeo-Christian, they have fared far better. Inherent respect for others, personal and social responsibility and other factors have clearly played a part in their handling of Covid.

Not to mention that even within the U.S., areas with higher religious adherence tend to correlate with greater levels of social disfunction.

The idea that Christian beliefs are required for a well-functioning society is a complete myth.

Strathos · Nov 20, 2020

SolaChristian said:
I'm sorry but that's not a very genuine response. Really, that is quite petty actually. As a Christian I am deeply affected on an emotional and spiritual level by the reality of lives lost. But what I absolutely despise about Democrat Covid rhetoric is that people take all those emotions into discourse around policies and none of the rationality that we need to actually make wise decisions.

Pandemic safety shouldn't be a partisan political matter. Follow what the science has shown to be effective. If we had done that from the beginning we wouldn't have nearly as many deaths as we do now.

Obviously when we're talking about having policies and lockdowns that are going to negatively impact every single aspect of human life for years to come, we ought to consider if the risks outweigh the benefits. This is not ageism. This is not being uncaring, in fact, this is considering what the best way is that we can both save lives, but also not at the expense of other lives. When I say "lives" I also don't mean merely the condition of having a body that is conscious. Democrats of all people should know that quality of life is more important than just being alive. When I look at these numbers, and I see that the young population is basically unaffected, and that the total deaths are really not much higher than they are normally, am I not logically justified in calling into question the fact that we are decimating all aspects of life merely to delay the inevitable?

Do you not believe there will be an effective vaccine? They have some almost ready for distribution right now.

You can call that a numbers game if you want to, I'd call it cost-benefit analysis in the context of policies, which takes place in every other sphere of life as well. E.g., your genius "defund the police" idea.

I don't recall having such an idea.

Or health experts who use "YPLL" (years of potential life lost) as a measurement when making decisions. By the way, since you raised the point of a "numbers game", as a person who wants abortion to be legal because apparently that lowers the number of abortions, how does it feel to engage in inconsistent reasoning when encountering perspectives you don't like?

I don't see how it's inconsistent. The countries with the lowest abortion rates have legal abortion but things like comprehensive sex education, free birth control, paid maternity leave, etc. Abortion rates in the US before Roe vs. Wade are estimated to be about the same as after it was passed, except more women died due to dangerous illegal procedures.

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant. My point is that it is legitimate to think about the mortality rate of Covid-19 before we start imposing things on people and violating their liberties. Similarly, it is wise to consider the mortality rate and prevalence of abortion when making policies, although there are other factors to consider as well, like legislating morality as I mentioned.

It's moral to let a deadly disease spread unchecked?

Strathos · Nov 20, 2020

Let me just clarify that I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't be pro-life and think abortion should be illegal. You should just be consistent about it.

Alibris · Nov 20, 2020

I am also pro choice because having an abortion isn't always about being a promiscuous woman.
There are other reasons why woman chose to have an abortion like being raped, mother's life is at risk or the baby will not live.

To be Pro-Life is to want the well being of all women to do what is best for them.

Even if you don't morally agree with it. Let Jesus be the judge of it.

Sketcher · Nov 21, 2020

SolaChristian said:
I'm sorry but that's not a very genuine response. Really, that is quite petty actually. As a Christian I am deeply affected on an emotional and spiritual level by the reality of lives lost. But what I absolutely despise about Democrat Covid rhetoric is that people take all those emotions into discourse around policies and none of the rationality that we need to actually make wise decisions.

I agree with that, but there's a lack of rationality on both sides. Many on the left who claimed to be very concerned about the virus decided to make an exception when it came to left-wing protests, even though no lives matter to this virus. But many on the right unfortunately are refusing to wear a mask and social distance as a form of protest, and disregarding any science that shows the value of wearing a mask and social distancing, and getting agitated when people try to have an adult conversation with them about it.

SolaChristian said:
Obviously when we're talking about having policies and lockdowns that are going to negatively impact every single aspect of human life for years to come, we ought to consider if the risks outweigh the benefits. This is not ageism. This is not being uncaring, in fact, this is considering what the best way is that we can both save lives, but also not at the expense of other lives. When I say "lives" I also don't mean merely the condition of having a body that is conscious. Democrats of all people should know that quality of life is more important than just being alive. When I look at these numbers, and I see that the young population is basically unaffected, and that the total deaths are really not much higher than they are normally, am I not logically justified in calling into question the fact that we are decimating all aspects of life merely to delay the inevitable? You can call that a numbers game if you want to, I'd call it cost-benefit analysis in the context of policies, which takes place in every other sphere of life as well. E.g., your genius "defund the police" idea. Or health experts who use "YPLL" (years of potential life lost) as a measurement when making decisions.

I agree with that, but it's irrational to draw the conversation away from these topics by refusing to wear masks, and making the masks the point of debate rather than the bad policies. Wearing a mask is easy. Not being able to run your business to put food on the table is hard. Let's be good about the masks, and talk about how we can better let people earn their livings and grow their food.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Nov 21, 2020

99.6% or something akin to that number, of all people who get corona virus are likely to survive the infection.

What's the percentage of people surviving abortions? Very low I imagine.

I think I'm on safe grounds on not caring about masks and remaining pro-life. Much like I don't care about cars despite the fact that I know because we use cars as means of transport people are going to die. I accept that as an unavoidable reality. Or like if I have the flu and go out into the public anyway. Small chance someone dies. But it's a risk most people are willing to take.

loveofourlord · Nov 21, 2020

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
99.6% or something akin to that number, of all people who get corona virus are likely to survive the infection.

What's the percentage of people surviving abortions? Very low I imagine.

I think I'm on safe grounds on not caring about masks and remaining pro-life. Much like I don't care about cars despite the fact that I know because we use cars as means of transport people are going to die. I accept that as an unavoidable reality. Or like if I have the flu and go out into the public anyway. Small chance someone dies. But it's a risk most people are willing to take.

That number of survivors is going down as hospitals can't take enough people in. Plus always so funny how you guys ignore that death isn't the only problem covid causes, it has potentially permanent lung, neurological and other damage even to children.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Nov 21, 2020

loveofourlord said:
That number of survivors is going down as hospitals can't take enough people in. Plus always so funny how you guys ignore that death isn't the only problem covid causes, it has potentially permanent lung, neurological and other damage even to children.

And what is the percentage of people who are permanently damaged by the Corona virus?

Plus, which hospitals are having problems managing the Corona cases? As far as I've seen the problem for hospitals is that they've suspended other medical care services in order to treat the virus.

loveofourlord · Nov 21, 2020

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
And what is the percentage of people who are permanently damaged by the Corona virus?

Plus, which hospitals are having problems managing the Corona cases? As far as I've seen the problem for hospitals is that they've suspended other medical care services in order to treat the virus.

ummmm over 1000 hospitals right now can't handle the stress. 1,000 U.S. Hospitals Are 'Critically' Short On Staff — And More Expect To Be Soon

‘Potential To Overwhelm’: Major Cities—Like Los Angeles And St. Louis—Now Running Out Of Hospital Space Because Of Covid

Covid is a disease that has heavy requirements on staff that need to be round the clock checked on. This isn't just cancer where you can stick them in the bed and keep a eye on them, it's far worse. There are 82k people in hospitals as of yesterday with coivd and 16k of them are in ICU. And it's only getting worse with no signs of slowing down. This is BEFORE Christmas and thanksgiving where many selfish idiots are going to travel and spread the disease. This is 2-3 weeks before the 150K cases testing positive from the last few weeks start to get into hospitals, along with the people they infected.

muichimotsu · Nov 21, 2020

SolaChristian said:
This thread has been quite all over the place but I'd like to comment on the original question specifically and just give one perspective...
So I am pro-life, but still have a lot to learn on the topic, and I'm also vaguely anti-mask. Let me explain why:

Regarding the pro-life issue. I believe that framing it in terms of "women's choice" and having "choice over their bodies" is a bit of a red herring. For me, the debate is ended when either side can prove that the fetus (Latin word for 'baby' by the way) is a person or is not a person. Because, obviously, persons have the right to life and to not be violently dismembered, have their limbs and skulls crushed and sucked away by a straw, or scorched to death by chemicals. For me, the evidence weighs in favor that the baby is a person, because it has all of the components necessary to develop into a fully functioning person within a predictable period of time, and the only thing distinguishing it from other persons is its location and level of development. The only way to get around this is by defining a baby in the womb as 'not a person', which sounds like a quite familiar excuse to kill persons. Anyway, whether or not banning it will actually decrease or increase the killing of persons is irrelevant, the state must legislate morality. You can disagree with this if you want to be pragmatic, but I think there's a case to be made for making murder illegal.

The pro-mask issue is completely different, because I don't think that there is nearly enough scientific evidence to prove that is makes anywhere near the difference that the government would have us believe. I mean masks probably help a little bit, but not the way that people are using them. Yes, if you only wear it once before washing it, don't touch the outside, have a properly thick mask, and wear it correctly, and everyone around you does the same, then it probably helps to slow the spread of the virus a little bit. But, you are not actually saving any lives by wearing a mask, since everyone will likely get the virus at some point anyway, and its mortality rate is so low that it's not nearly comparable with the amount of lives taken through abortion each year. Not even vaguely close. E.g., in my country, 20 000 people have died from the Rona. We average about 500 000+ deaths per year (only counting registered deaths, it's likely way more). We have a few hundred thousand abortions each year. Can you see the discrepancy?

Don't get me wrong, I do wear a mask even though I don't think it really does anything, but I think the hysteria around this virus is frankly quite laughable, and thinking that a mask will prevent you from getting it is quite close to delusional. And I also think that comparing this virus with abortions is immoral. The virus is a natural occurrence. If you are a naturalist, this is merely natural selection at its finest. But if the pro-lifers are right and the fetus is a person, then the fact of the matter is that we are committing so much infanticide that it's sickening beyond recognition.

That's a big if: and autonomy of a woman in terms of reproductive health is not overriden by any agreement about a non viable fetus being a person, because consent to sex is neither consent to pregnancy nor to parenthood and the idea that a woman should be forced to be pregnant against her will because of a reductionist focus on saving life and ignoring liberty is reprehensible and inhuman, because it suggests that protecting any potential life is more important than valuing the autonomy and liberty of actual life that is sapient and sentient.

No, naturalism doesn't equate to Social Darwinism, you're strawmanning, I don't accept that this is just fate, that's your attitude in the idea that this is just inevitable and everyone's going to catch it. Even if we granted the "current" survival rate, 1) that's because of more advanced medical technology than we had a century ago where in the span of 2 years, the U.S. alone had 675000 deaths from that pandemic and 2) it ignores that there is evidence of not only reinfection because of the variable nature of this strain, but also long term problems even if you recover, major lung damage coming to mind for instance.

This is not purely about individual autonomy, it's about public health and actually having remote empathy and compassion for EVERYONE, not just the vulnerable, but even someone healthy in their 20s could die from this because it has such severe symptoms, to say nothing of the immune response problem that has killed otherwise healthy individuals.

And the fact that you are suggesting that because there are less deaths in this pandemic than abortions shows that you are doing the very thing you said is immoral in comparing abortion as an issue to addressing a pandemic and the deaths that result from that. You are trying to downplay one and then promote your pet issue of abortions, which is repugnant to say the least, since it suggests you care less about people dying from a disease that could've been addressed better without individuals being selfish and acting like their freedom means they can infect others (because asymptomatic viral load is a thing) and instead care more about potential lives that may not even have remote quality of life because of a broken system that cares more about profit than people.

muichimotsu · Nov 21, 2020

SolaChristian said:
I'm sorry but that's not a very genuine response. Really, that is quite petty actually. As a Christian I am deeply affected on an emotional and spiritual level by the reality of lives lost. But what I absolutely despise about Democrat Covid rhetoric is that people take all those emotions into discourse around policies and none of the rationality that we need to actually make wise decisions.

Obviously when we're talking about having policies and lockdowns that are going to negatively impact every single aspect of human life for years to come, we ought to consider if the risks outweigh the benefits. This is not ageism. This is not being uncaring, in fact, this is considering what the best way is that we can both save lives, but also not at the expense of other lives. When I say "lives" I also don't mean merely the condition of having a body that is conscious. Democrats of all people should know that quality of life is more important than just being alive. When I look at these numbers, and I see that the young population is basically unaffected, and that the total deaths are really not much higher than they are normally, am I not logically justified in calling into question the fact that we are decimating all aspects of life merely to delay the inevitable? You can call that a numbers game if you want to, I'd call it cost-benefit analysis in the context of policies, which takes place in every other sphere of life as well. E.g., your genius "defund the police" idea. Or health experts who use "YPLL" (years of potential life lost) as a measurement when making decisions. By the way, since you raised the point of a "numbers game", as a person who wants abortion to be legal because apparently that lowers the number of abortions, how does it feel to engage in inconsistent reasoning when encountering perspectives you don't like?

Anyway, that's a bit of a rant. My point is that it is legitimate to think about the mortality rate of Covid-19 before we start imposing things on people and violating their liberties. Similarly, it is wise to consider the mortality rate and prevalence of abortion when making policies, although there are other factors to consider as well, like legislating morality as I mentioned.

The mortality rate is still not necessarily certain at this point and that;s fundamentally reductionist to think it is only about that when it is as much the novel nature of this, which can kill a health 20 something. It's not common, but it does happen, because this isn't the flu, which you dishonestly try to compare this to, when that's maybe a 6 month time frame with about 80K deaths if I'm just throwing out an average, whereas in the span of nearly twice that we have 3x that number in America alone, let alone the over 1 million people dead worldwide.

Trying to downplay this or act like you're being rational when you're rationalizing and trying to divest yourself of emotion is the kind of callous attitude a utilitarian would do, maximizing "freedom" instead of good and conflating the 2. Your right to go without a mask stops at the right of others to not be needlessly infected by your irresponsibility and disregard for science because you don't want to be inconvenienced or act like this is an oppressive thing when even the lockdowns are not long term, they're flattening the curve.

Don't even try to throw out your strawmen of what you think "defund the police" means, because I'd bet money your understanding is hyperbolic and wrong versus what is actually suggested and has been since the 60s.

muichimotsu · Nov 21, 2020

Strathos said:
Let me just clarify that I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't be pro-life and think abortion should be illegal. You should just be consistent about it.

Or admit that you're pro fetus and not pro life in other situations unless you can demonstrate that (being pacifist, for instance, and helping orphans deal with their poor quality of life with a terribly managed adoption system)

Sketcher · Nov 21, 2020

muichimotsu said:
That's a big if: and autonomy of a woman in terms of reproductive health is not overriden by any agreement about a non viable fetus being a person, because consent to sex is neither consent to pregnancy nor to parenthood

To consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy or parenthood (for either person involved) is irresponsible and irrational, much like refusing to wear a mask. The common thread here is self-regulation and self-responsibility. When people are responsible enough to self-regulate, they generally provide fewer problems for other people. If more people were better about social distancing and wearing masks, then we would have fewer COVID outbreaks, and consequently, fewer of the social costs that occur because of those outbreaks. If more people would consider that engaging in sex will very often produce a baby, and not have sex if they are not ready to raise that baby together, then there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies, and far fewer targeted deaths of innocent people (abortions), and also fewer single-parent households and fewer social costs associated with single-parent vs two-parent households.

muichimotsu · Nov 21, 2020

Sketcher said:
To consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy or parenthood (for either person involved) is irresponsible and irrational, much like refusing to wear a mask. The common thread here is self-regulation and self-responsibility. When people are responsible enough to self-regulate, they generally provide fewer problems for other people. If more people were better about social distancing and wearing masks, then we would have fewer COVID outbreaks, and consequently, fewer of the social costs that occur because of those outbreaks. If more people would consider that engaging in sex will very often produce a baby, and not have sex if they are not ready to raise that baby together, then there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies, and far fewer targeted deaths of innocent people (abortions), and also fewer single-parent households and fewer social costs associated with single-parent vs two-parent households.

That's the problem, one following as a possibility from another action does not mean a woman consents to pregnancy, that is a natural process she has no control over beyond the sexual act and choosing to use or not use birth control, which can reduce the chances

No, because not wearing a mask is exposing others to a virus, having unprotected sex was not what I specified in my phrasing at all, because I would assume people are not utterly stupid and use protection as much as possible when having sex, especially as supposedly mature adults and not stunted children

You don't get to tell people how to regulate their reproductive health, because it does not affect you, only the victims you believe are being hurt, when, conveniently, they can't complain or bring up any issues, unlike pretty much any other group brought up explicitly in the bible: the poor, the widows, the orphans. It's the best victim to white knight for, because the unborn are easy to paint in a way that is emotionally manipulative and ignore that a woman's autonomy is not thrown away merely because she is pregnant, that's repulsive and misogynist.

Wearing a mask in public areas where there is risk of spread is responsibility that involves the safety of others, someone having responsible or irresponsible sex is separate from the issue of abortion as focused on autonomy that, unlike with masks in a pandemic, is not affecting others beyond their cries of victimization or acting as if this is the worst problem in history

You can't logically link less abortions with healthier families, because that isn't the only factor by a long shot and abortions can arguably not only help avoid the very problem you bring up of single parent households (pressured by social conformity to not abort because otherwise you're "evil") but also preserve better mental health with women who are not confronted by this ugly stigma placed on something that is not the business of others to regulate beyond the limits of the laws in place and protections impugned by Roe v. Wade (which is over half the pregnancy at this point with medical technology, so it tells me that pro life has more of the advantage here based on legal protections, but they apparently want to just outright ban it, because they can't share like a mature adult, but whine like a spoiled child who wants it all)

Sketcher · Nov 21, 2020

muichimotsu said:
That's the problem, one following as a possibility from another action does not mean a woman consents to pregnancy, that is a natural process she has no control over beyond the sexual act and choosing to use or not use birth control, which can reduce the chances

I'm sure most anti-maskers wouldn't consent to giving the virus to people either. That's a natural process they have no control over, and they're refusing to do at least one of the two things that every able-bodied and able-minded person can do to thwart it.

muichimotsu said:
No, because not wearing a mask is exposing others to a virus, having unprotected sex was not what I specified in my phrasing at all, because I would assume people are not utterly stupid and use protection as much as possible when having sex, especially as supposedly mature adults and not stunted children

That's a bad assumption to make.

muichimotsu said:
You don't get to tell people how to regulate their reproductive health, because it does not affect you, only the victims you believe are being hurt, when, conveniently, they can't complain or bring up any issues, unlike pretty much any other group brought up explicitly in the bible: the poor, the widows, the orphans. It's the best victim to white knight for, because the unborn are easy to paint in a way that is emotionally manipulative and ignore that a woman's autonomy is not thrown away merely because she is pregnant, that's repulsive and misogynist.

The unborn are worse off than orphans. At least a high percentage of orphans aren't being targeted to be killed by their own parents (though I won't discount the fact that some had been).

muichimotsu said:
Wearing a mask in public areas where there is risk of spread is responsibility that involves the safety of others, someone having responsible or irresponsible sex is separate from the issue of abortion as focused on autonomy that, unlike with masks in a pandemic, is not affecting others beyond their cries of victimization or acting as if this is the worst problem in history

Not creating high-risk pregnancies directly involves the safety of the unborn babies, and to an extent, the women who would have been pregnant.

muichimotsu said:
You can't logically link less abortions with healthier families, because that isn't the only factor by a long shot

I was linking less promiscuity with healthier families, actually.

muichimotsu said:
but also preserve better mental health with women who are not confronted by this ugly stigma placed on something that is not the business of others to regulate beyond the limits of the laws in place and protections impugned by Roe v. Wade

Abortion is not good for women's mental health. The only women I know of who would consider making that statement are the "shout your abortion" women, and that seems to be more of an indicator that something is wrong with them psychologically than anything else.

muichimotsu said:
(which is over half the pregnancy at this point with medical technology, so it tells me that pro life has more of the advantage here based on legal protections, but they apparently want to just outright ban it, because they can't share like a mature adult, but whine like a spoiled child who wants it all)

If that's your complaint against pro-lifers, you should pay attention to the pushback that pro-choicers give when any additional law to incrementally restrict abortions is even proposed, let alone passed.

NerdGirl · Nov 21, 2020

Strathos said:
Often you hear this argument:

Pro-choicers: Women should have the right to control their own bodies and not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, so abortion should be legal.

Pro-lifers: Who cares about your rights? It's more important to protect the lives of the unborn, so the government should outlaw abortion!

But recently, you often hear this:

Government: This is a very dangerous and deadly virus that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans, so during this pandemic, you need to wear masks to protect people's lives.

Anti-maskers (who tend to be the same people as the abovementioned pro-lifers): Who cares about other people's lives? It's more important that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell us what to do!

Does no one see the hypocrisy here?

(Let me just say that I empathize strongly with the pro-life position. I just don't endorse it because all the evidence suggests that outlawing abortion won't decrease it, just make it more unsafe for the mother. But the goal of reducing abortions is a good one, and historically that is best done by comprehensive sex education and access to birth control.)

This is a very poor comparison, and it's getting rather old as people continually attempt to repeat it in order to shore up their "wear a mask or you hate everyone and want them to die" nonsense.

Believing that murdering unborn babies is abhorrent is a far cry from not believing that we should all be wearing a disposable mask with "does not prevent disease transmission" right on the box.

muichimotsu · Nov 22, 2020

I'm sure most anti-maskers wouldn't consent to giving the virus to people either. That's a natural process they have no control over, and they're refusing to do at least one of the two things that every able-bodied and able-minded person can do to thwart it.

They have control over taking preventative measures or being a selfish jerk, that's the problem. The same applies to birth control, I never said otherwise, the difference is in perceived harm

That's a bad assumption to make.

I try to maintain some optimism in spite of people doing everything to try and suggest humanity is utterly without hope (ironically based on religious sentiments that encourage self loathing in the first place)

The unborn are worse off than orphans. At least a high percentage of orphans aren't being targeted to be killed by their own parents (though I won't discount the fact that some had been).

No, because they aren't being killed in that vein, first off, you're making a category error. Unborn die in an abortion, they are not killed in the sense of murder or even manslaughter, you're stretching the idea to cover them and ignoring that orphans actually suffer, the unborn experience about as much pain as a cat does in terms of an abortion, if even that, most of the time, since they don't even have a remotely developed brain at that point.

Not creating high-risk pregnancies directly involves the safety of the unborn babies, and to an extent, the women who would have been pregnant.

And that's purely autonomous, because the unborn are directly parasitizing off the woman in the first place, she did not consent to that, that's the fundamental problem. Her abortion does not affect anyone outside of her and in the case of the unborn, it's debatable they're a person except in the abstract as some future parents would regard, but they're actually invested and consented to parenthood, unlike what women are expected to do for some ridiculous reason.

I was linking less promiscuity with healthier families, actually.

Then abortion should be safe, legal and rare, correct? I'm not suggesting abortion is the first solution, I never have, because I understand preventative measures are more practical.

Abortion is not good for women's mental health. The only women I know of who would consider making that statement are the "shout your abortion" women, and that seems to be more of an indicator that something is wrong with them psychologically than anything else.

You don't get to talk about women's mental health so casually based on anecdotal evidence. It's complicated, but the government does not have a vested interest in forcing women to carry pregnancies to term merely because it is known. The distinct life is not a person, legally speaking, or even morally unless you literally decide to grant that unborn entity special rights over the woman for a situation she did not consent to, versus the sex, which does not necessarily lead to pregnancy with preventative measures.

If that's your complaint against pro-lifers, you should pay attention to the pushback that pro-choicers give when any additional law to incrementally restrict abortions is even proposed, let alone passed

Because they're being selfish, as I just pointed out, they have no business doing that and it's literally a loophole they've found because they realize the only way they can do anything is on the state level, versus the blatantly unconstitutional outright ban of abortions. So instead, they decide to, in the vein of bureaucrats, make it as prohibitively difficult as possible as if that dissuades someone who isn't going to bend over and take it from religious virgin culture prudes

Pro-Life, Anti-Mask?

No one important

No one important

Member

Well-Known Member

No one important

No one important

Member

Born Imperishable

Dissident

Newbie

Dissident

Newbie

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

I Spit On Perfection

Born Imperishable

I Spit On Perfection

Born Imperishable

The untamed daughter

I Spit On Perfection

Similar threads