What Everyone Knows About Saving Lives But Few Care



The so called "Right to Life" political group has a great opinion of itself. I can't say how many times I've one of them say or read what was written, "We're for life. We don't believe in killing innocent babies." But when one brings up killing innocent adults, the conversation ends.

A study looked at the health and quality of life of several countries including the U.S. The length and quality of life in social medicine and abortion rights countries is better than that in Christian dominated U.S. The interest in 40,000 deaths in car wrecks has no potential for raising money or generating political juices. Nearly all of them could be prevented.

The link compares the health of people in many countries. As mentioned, the health in many European countries is better than that in the U. S. As I understand it, however, the health of the demographic cohort that I am a part of in the U.S., good income and education, is the same as Europe. The average health and life expectancy in the U.S. is drawn down by income inequality. The health and longevity of poor people is lower. Europe has a smaller such population so it average health numbers are higher. 

The facts about death are clear. Highway speed, driving rules, driver qualifications and enforcement can eliminate almost all traffic deaths. Yet, the anti-abortion legislature where I live outlawed speeding cameras. Saving lives in the street is not important. Only single cells called "human beings" are important. Income inequality data show us lives could be saved by making poor people better able to navigate medical and health needs. 

Adult and children's lives could be saved. Right-to life doesn't care about these lives.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ancient God, Bel (Baal), the Main Character in an Ancient Play

Image
In a British museum is a preserved stone tablet from Babylon. It dates to about 2,000 BCE. Someone labored patiently to inscribe an entire passion play featuring the god Bel. I reiterate this is a stone tablet, not a recopied papyrus. The play begins with the god Bel arrested by soldiers and taken off the stage. He reappears at a trial in the Hall of Judgement. Bel is innocent but is sentenced to death. In the next scene Bel is accosted by a mob. He is despised and rejected. The actor playing Bel is then taken by guard to a hilltop in a sacred grove. Two criminals are taken with him. One of these is released. The the audience then leaves the theater and follows the actor Bel and his guards to the top of a hill where the death scene is enacted by hanging from a tree. The audience returns to the theater for the dramatic final scenes. The dead Bel is stripped and prepared for burial. On a theatrical hill to the side of the stage is a tomb where the body is placed. A stone is rolle...
Read more

Will We Ever Know How Accurate Current Bibles Are

Image
When I discuss the many times the Bible was copied and recopied by scribes over a couple of thousand years, the reply is often, "I have a book by this (or that) expert who says the Bible is 99% accurate to its original writers." The 99% claim appears in various places defending the Bible. There is one thing we know absolutely: There is no surviving original copy of the Bible. Even the oldest surviving material is a generation or two after the time some of the Bible was written. This means no one can claim he has, or ever will, compare the current Bible to the original Bible and find the two are 99% the same. We cannot claim either that it is not 99% accurate. For the sake of discussion, however, assume the current Bible is 99% accurate. That would mean the one word out of every 100 was inaccurate. It could still mean an important misreading of the original text. An example is the passage referring to punishment for a man who kills a fetus. In the oldest know materia...
Read more

What Was the "Argument" in the Election

Image
I hate to add my blog to the piles of blogs and pundits analyzing and pondering the meaning of the just passed election. But that's what I feel like doing today. I've always like Senator Ted Cruz's summary of politics. He once said, "First, win the argument. Then, win the election." I think there is a way of applying that to anti abortion Catholics and Protestants. The link talks of Catholics who now feel they have no political home because Republicans let them down with Trump but they remain against abortion rights. Taking Cruz's win-the-argument thesis, I'd call the past election about an argument between two groups. One group's argument was, "Trump's a jerk." The other's argument was, "Abortion is wrong." The group, "Trump's a jerk," won the argument and then the election.  While one can argue the election, or any election, it about more complex issues, I believe in the end elections hinge on very simple ar...
Read more