The Trade Off Between Death from Coronavirus and Money
People who are out of work need money. So do governments. Companies large and small need money. That is why there are demonstrations demanding expiration of executive closing of businesses, schools and government offices.
As several have pointed out, a trade off between money, convenience and death are made all the time. We could prevent over 30,000 deaths each years by lowering speed limits and enforcing them. We could prevent almost as many by very strict protocols in hospitals. Then there is the medical attention that could saving more new born babies and unhealthy adults. Put in that context, allowing the economy to open up when numbers of deaths is, say, equal to the annual flu deaths can use these other trade offs as justification.
Everyday there are no doubt hundreds of life support shut offs because patients are not going to survive. This is both a money issue and is humane.
There is more or less agreement in our society about these trade offs between money and lives. But, the wheels come of our agreement when the word "abortion" comes up. If you went to one of the many protests around the country where people are demanding economic closures be relaxed and ask protesters about the lives lost by not distancing he/she would not doubt reply there must be a trade off between lives lost and money. If you asked the same person about abortion they are likely to say, "I'm in favor of life."
Therein lies the brutal politics of abortion. Certain kinds of life have more value than others. Lives of fetuses are far more valuable than lives of adults. When someone says, "I'm for life" they don't really mean that. What they mean is "The life of a fetus is more valuable than rights of a mother."
Anti abortion operatives always say, "The mother intends to kill a specific fetus. Lobbying to open the economy that will kill people is not aimed at anyone specifically." This is splitting hairs, an effort to divert attention from the broad and far reaching general argument. The fact is a woman who cannot afford to give birth and the protester against coronavirus closing are both making trade offs for money.
To argue they are two entirely separate circumstances is to apply a different standard to pregnant women. Controlling women seems to be the real objective.
Jon, “Controlling women seems to be the real objective.”
ReplyDeleteAs with most issues I can find statistics to support the conclusion that draconian ant-abortion laws discriminate against poor women. I only have to look to some of our neighbors to the south. El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Haiti for example. Rich women get safe abortions, poor women die trying. Once the US surrenders to similar laws, and it will, the result will be the same. In this country then, who do you think will get a safe abortion on demand, female members of the 400 families that hold more wealth than the bottom 60% of the population or an abandoned young Native American mother of 5 in Wounded Knee, South Dakota? That service will be on the gilded menu for the privileged. alone. It may be safe to say the classic “American Dream” is long dead and buried somewhere on Capitalism’s Mount Nebo. A resurrected American Dream will include reproductive rights for all women and Warren Buffet’s income tax rate. So bring on the ant-abortion wet dream but don’t try to sell me that crap that Planned Parenthood and safe affordable abortion are part of some covert racial eugenics scheme. Which came first the womb or the fetus?
Ardy B "Rich women get safe abortion, poor women die trying."
DeleteAbsolutely true. I have a book beside me, "Her Body, Our Laws" by Michelle Oberman I have discussed her before. So far as I know it is the only work about abortion where the author spent time in South/Central America as well as in several U.S. states.
She found exactly the pattern you describe, in places with draconian anti abortion laws the laws are not seen as a problem by those who hold high offices. That class, upper middle class and urban, has abortion available just as in countries where it is legal. Poor rural women are the ones without access. Only the country of El Salvador regularly enforces anti abortion laws but there are abortions there.
Anti abortion big talkers like to talk about the one-cell "human beings, babies." They NEVER want to talk about precisely how a national anti abortion law would work. The fact is they have never worked.
Jon; You are the economist. Take one cent. double it, then continue to double the result. There is a word for that.
DeleteIn addition, re. "Never want to talk about precisely how a national anti abortion law would work." NOT MY POINT. Just the dis- honesty of your "one cell human beings."
Helper "NOT MY POINT. Just the dis-honesty of your "one cell human beings."
ReplyDeleteYou have complained about this perhaps dozens of times, always making the point there is not ONE cell but several.
You are so careless with you pointless criticisms. You have said before you are of the Lutheran Missouri Synod branch of Christianity. I have never heard you say you had doubts about any part of you denominations position, in fact always praise for it.
What is you denominations position on "one cell" versus your position of multiple cells? Don't bother to look it up, I already did, "The development of a new individual (egg and sperm) united to form something new: a cell ..."
So, stop criticizing me for repeating what your denomination says. (Until you correct your denomination I will most likely not be posting your angry replies.)
Helper -- That was from "Abortion in Perspective". Development of a new individual, p. 7.
DeleteSo now, angry is defined by a disagreement( with evidence) with you. How quaint. Does that sound angry? You must remember you are not in the position of power and authority you once had. Ouch. That must hurt.
ReplyDeletewhat we have here is a philosophical/metaphysical difference that is so wide that one could drive the old eighteen wheeler analogy thru it. Jon refuses to recognize this reality (i.e.the nature, the seriousness and the depth of the disagreement. as a result he can only reply with scorn and denial. that said, I would like to know more about "Abortion in Perspective". who wrote it? when was it written? hopefully we will get a response.
DeleteUnknown re "Abortion in Perspective" If you search, "Lutheran Missouri Synod" you will get the official website. Searching about you will get papers and the domination's take on many issues, similar but much shorter than the Catholic Encyclopedia.
DeleteYou are wrong saying I do not recognize "this reality...depth of disagreement." Both Helper and I agree the science of conception is far more complicated than "one cell" and we agree on the position of his church. The topic here is religion but he gets mad when I discuss religion.
Unknown. I can't answer your question. I've looked all over, and can't find anything in context to the discussion. Then there are the ellipsis, (...) an often used tool to talk around, provide deception, and mis-representation.
DeleteI think Jon is being less than honest on this.
He claims it is religious, with the related arguments when it is reproductive science, and the biologically proven sequence of events in time , from the meeting of sperm and egg, to the first cell division.
little helper "I looked all over and can't find anything IN CONTEXT TO THE DISCUSSION."
DeleteWhat is the world do those last 5 words mean? Do you, or do you not, know what your denomination's position is on abortion? It is stated clearly on the website of your denomination.
"He claims it is religious..." It is on the Lutheran Missouri Synod site. Therefore it is religious. That is not a place one goes to find science.
We are discussing religion here, not science. If you want to discuss science we could start another thread or another blog.
Helper "So now anger is defined by a disagreement..."
ReplyDeleteI've never been able to figure out your point so I just don't post your rants about this. What I do with the so called "beginning of a human being" is quote conservative definitions used by conservative churches such as your own. That definition is one fertilized cell is a human being. I've quoted it to you from other conservative sites and today from your own denomination. That is an accurate portrayal of your branch of the faith. I do not believe this is true but I quote denominations like yours.
For some reason when I quote accurately those like your denomination who preach this garbage it sets you off. Yes, I could go into the fact that there is no "moment of conception", the process takes many hours and other things are going on while it is taking place. But that would make no sense because we are discussing religious views.
abortion in perspective? you refer me to an LCMS site. OK. but it seems to me that way back when there was another book by that name. I will enter it on my search engine and see what I come up with.
DeleteJon, found Abortion from Three Perspective, Tooley. you might find it worth a read: all sides presented.
ReplyDeleteJon; If I would mention how good tapioca pudding is, I'm sure you would find a way to introduce religion to the reply, then piss and moan I didn't follow your lead.
ReplyDeleteHelper :...how good tapioca pudding is, I'm sure you would find a way to introduce religion.."
ReplyDeleteI don't know about tapioca pudding, but if you said you like fig newtons I would warn you. Jesus hated fig trees, he smote one of them. I'm sure eating figs is a sin.
Do you dare print that?
Delete