COVID-19 and the "pro-life" movement

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've noticed that in the debate about the response to COVID-19, the so-called "pro-life" community has been conspicuously absent.

In the US right now, some people are pushing for physical distancing requirements to be lifted. Are there any "pro-life" groups arguing that the requirements to stay based on the lives they'll save?

Recently, here in Ontario, the province released its modelling numbers. They had 3 scenarios:

• No physical distancing measures
• Continue the current approach
• Stricter physical distancing measures

The difference between "current approach" and "stricter measures" was 1,400 deaths just in this province.

Despite this, I didn't hear a single "pro-life" group say anything like "put those stricter measures in place! Every one of those 1,400 lives is precious!"

So... so-called pro-lifers: care to explain yourselves? Is your "pro-life" position informing any position on COVID-19? If not, why not?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I've noticed that in the debate about the response to COVID-19, the so-called "pro-life" community has been conspicuously absent.

In the US right now, some people are pushing for physical distancing requirements to be lifted. Are there any "pro-life" groups arguing that the requirements to stay based on the lives they'll save?

Recently, here in Ontario, the province released its modelling numbers. They had 3 scenarios:

• No physical distancing measures
• Continue the current approach
• Stricter physical distancing measures

The difference between "current approach" and "stricter measures" was 1,400 deaths just in this province.

Despite this, I didn't hear a single "pro-life" group say anything like "put those stricter measures in place! Every one of those 1,400 lives is precious!"

So... so-called pro-lifers: care to explain yourselves? Is your "pro-life" position informing any position on COVID-19? If not, why not?

Well, we know that if people don't have jobs, they will have a harder time paying for things that cost money. Food costs money, thus the risk of death by starvation, or at least, diseases caused by malnutrition increases with each month that we continue forbidding people from going to work. Additionally, anxiety about not having a job, depression and loneliness from being forbidden from seeing friends and family members (did you know that assistant living facilities have basically become prisons?) could lead to an increase in suicides. In fact, if I were terminally ill and told that I can't see friends or family or do anything that I enjoy for perhaps the rest of my life, I'd strongly consider suicide. So stop throwing mental health under the bus. It's a real concern for a lot of people, even if it doesn't affect you personally.

 

[Cooky]

I've noticed that in the debate about the response to COVID-19, the so-called "pro-life" community has been conspicuously absent.

In the US right now, some people are pushing for physical distancing requirements to be lifted. Are there any "pro-life" groups arguing that the requirements to stay based on the lives they'll save?

Recently, here in Ontario, the province released its modelling numbers. They had 3 scenarios:

• No physical distancing measures
• Continue the current approach
• Stricter physical distancing measures

The difference between "current approach" and "stricter measures" was 1,400 deaths just in this province.

Despite this, I didn't hear a single "pro-life" group say anything like "put those stricter measures in place! Every one of those 1,400 lives is precious!"

So... so-called pro-lifers: care to explain yourselves? Is your "pro-life" position informing any position on COVID-19? If not, why not?

What did the pro-lifer say to the free-willer..?

 

[Father Heathen]

Meh, everyone knows that being prolife is about reining in wicked harlots far moreso than it is saving babies.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, we know that if people don't have jobs, they will have a harder time paying for things that cost money. Food costs money, thus the risk of death by starvation, or at least, diseases caused by malnutrition increases with each month that we continue forbidding people from going to work.

Well, while I don't agree with your argument, I notice that there's also an absence of "pro-life" voices calling for restrictions to be eased based on the (mistaken) belief that it will save lives.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Well, while I don't agree with your argument, I notice that there's also an absence of "pro-life" voices calling for restrictions to be eased based on the (mistaken) belief that it will save lives.

It's true that this generally isn't the argument coming from conservatives, so you have a point there.

But, obviously, there are diminishing returns to a lockdown. If we see a continual decrease in the number of new COVID cases, yet continue to stay locked down, we may not be saving lives anymore. There needs to be a clear criterion delineated by the experts as to what they are looking for in order to lift *some* of the restrictions on economic and social activity. Also, decisions should be made on a county-by-county, rather than state by state basis IMO. My county has had 0 new cases in over a week, not very populated (so very little travel in and out) yet we are under lockdown orders as strict as those in NYC, the COVID epicenter of the world. What's the logic in that?

 

[Yerda]

Meh, everyone knows that being prolife is about reining in wicked harlots far moreso than it is saving babies.

Man, those people are missing the point so badly. Harlots are the total bees knees.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Well, we know that if people don't have jobs, they will have a harder time paying for things that cost money. Food costs money, thus the risk of death by starvation, or at least, diseases caused by malnutrition increases with each month that we continue forbidding people from going to work. Additionally, anxiety about not having a job, depression and loneliness from being forbidden from seeing friends and family members (did you know that assistant living facilities have basically become prisons?) could lead to an increase in suicides. In fact, if I were terminally ill and told that I can't see friends or family or do anything that I enjoy for perhaps the rest of my life, I'd strongly consider suicide. So stop throwing mental health under the bus. It's a real concern for a lot of people, even if it doesn't affect you personally.

We could tax the rich more. They got plenty.

 

[sun rise]

But, obviously, there are diminishing returns to a lockdown. If we see a continual decrease in the number of new COVID cases, yet continue to stay locked down, we may not be saving lives anymore. There needs to be a clear criterion delineated by the experts as to what they are looking for in order to lift *some* of the restrictions on economic and social activity. Also, decisions should be made on a county-by-county, rather than state by state basis IMO.

I know of no one who is in favor of keeping restrictions in place beyond when they are needed. Outside of the extremist right wing, I know of no one who wants to just go back to business as usual. The question becomes when and how fast.

But this does not address the OP which is asking where the "pro-life" voices are. What I see, outside of the Catholic Church are anti-abortion people not really pro-life people.

I give Pope Francis and the Catholic Church high marks for consistency. I don't have to agree with their position to see that they are really focused on human life from top to bottom.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Pro-life" is a label for anti-abortion advocacy.
It's silly to take the label literally & too broadly, ie, being pro all life in all circumstances.
Surely, one wouldn't say that "pro-choice" is to be pro all choices in all matters.

I wouldn't expect pro-lifers to see plague policies as central to their
movement. There might even be diverse attitudes among them about
what safety measures to take, & the schedule for easing up on them.
But we have seen them influence policy in Texas, where
they've managed to ban most ordinarily legal abortions.
Now that is a policy which is right up their alley.

 

[Cooky]

"Pro-life" is a label for anti-abortion advocacy.
It's silly to take a label literally & too broadly, ie, being pro all life in all circumstances.
Surely, one wouldn't say that "pro-choice" is to be pro all choices in all matters.

I wouldn't expect pro-lifers to see plague policies as central to their
movement. There might even be diverse attitudes among them.
But we have seen them influence policy in Texas, where
they've managed to ban most ordinarily legal abortions.
Now that is a policy which is right up their alley.

Well... That doesn't help the OP's campaign very much.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well... That doesn't help the OP's campaign very much.

I'm usually here to help....but not always.

Edit:
I guess I am helping pro-lifers.
They're being unfairly attacked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's true that this generally isn't the argument coming from conservatives, so you have a point there.

But, obviously, there are diminishing returns to a lockdown. If we see a continual decrease in the number of new COVID cases, yet continue to stay locked down, we may not be saving lives anymore.

There certainly is a diminishing return. For instance, in the modelling I mentioned, Ontario's current approach was projected to save about 4,500 lives over the monthof April, while locking everything down even tighter would only save an additional 1,400 lives.

There needs to be a clear criterion delineated by the experts as to what they are looking for in order to lift *some* of the restrictions on economic and social activity.

Experts can make forecasts about how many lives a course of action is likely to save, and about the economic effects of the course of action, but the decision about that tradeoff - effectively, about what value we should place on human life, liberty, and money - is entirely a question of values... and the "pro-life" movement's whole spiel is about how we should be willing to sacrifice liberty if it saves "lives." If they were honest about what they're trying to do, I would have expected them to be all about saving lives with physical distancing rules.

Also, decisions should be made on a county-by-county, rather than state by state basis IMO. My county has had 0 new cases in over a week, not very populated (so very little travel in and out) yet we are under lockdown orders as strict as those in NYC, the COVID epicenter of the world. What's the logic in that?

The logic is that small rural counties generally have very little capacity to deal with an outbreak.

If your county has had 0 reported cases this week, I would guess that your population is quite small. Does your county even have its own hospital? How many ICU cases would it take for your health care system to be at capacity?

Yes: you aren't New York. But you also don't have New York's capacity to deal with the crisis.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Pro-life" is a label for anti-abortion advocacy.
It's silly to take the label literally & too broadly, ie, being pro all life in all circumstances.

It's silly they take the name because they are mostly conservatives, conservatives who want our young adults to go kill and be killed im foriegn lands. They often want welfare slashed, even if those cuts hirt children. They are often pro-death penalty, with many of them saying "oh well" when innocents are put to death. Amd it's very unusual for this crowd to suddenly be concerned with mental health, as they typically deride it as "all in your head" and telling people just to get over it - in terms of some issues such as LGBT issues they even outright reject what science and medicine have to say. Some even go as far asto claim psychology violates gods stuff amd promotes satanic values.
So, yes, it is obscenely absurd they call themselves "pro-life." The AP has a better approach of just calling them "anti-abortion" to avoid confusion (they also stress referring to pro-choice as "pro-abortion).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Pro-life" is a label for anti-abortion advocacy.
It's silly to take the label literally & too broadly, ie, being pro all life in all circumstances.
Surely, one wouldn't say that "pro-choice" is to be pro all choices in all matters.

I wouldn't expect pro-lifers to see plague policies as central to their
movement. There might even be diverse attitudes among them about
what safety measures to take, & the schedule for easing up on them.
But we have seen them influence policy in Texas, where
they've managed to ban most ordinarily legal abortions.
Now that is a policy which is right up their alley.

Guess you aren't familiar with their rhetoric. Try googling "pro-life slogans" to see why they say they're against abortion.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

There certainly is a diminishing return. For instance, in the modelling I mentioned, Ontario's current approach was projected to save about 4,500 lives over the monthof April, while locking everything down even tighter would only save an additional 1,400 lives.


Experts can make forecasts about how many lives a course of action is likely to save, and about the economic effects of the course of action, but the decision about that tradeoff - effectively, about what value we should place on human life, liberty, and money - is entirely a question of values... and the "pro-life" movement's whole spiel is about how we should be willing to sacrifice liberty if it saves "lives." If they were honest about what they're trying to do, I would have expected them to be all about saving lives with physical distancing rules.

Yes, but it's not only about the question of the value we place on human life. Eventually, a lockdown will lead to more deaths than not having a lockdown. We're not at that point yet, but if we were to continue it for, say, another two years without providing opportunities for people to make money to pay for food and have some degree of physical social interaction with others, we will have more deaths due to starvation and suicide than due to COVID. But I agree this ISN"T the typical argument from conservatives.

The logic is that small rural counties generally have very little capacity to deal with an outbreak.

If your county has had 0 reported cases this week, I would guess that your population is quite small. Does your county even have its own hospital? How many ICU cases would it take for your health care system to be at capacity?

Yes: you aren't New York. But you also don't have New York's capacity to deal with the crisis.

I don't know the exact number of ICU cases it would take for my county's health system to be at capacity. We have 120,000 people and two large hospital facilities with ICUs, so certainly enough to handle a minor to moderate outbreak. I believe there should be more nuance to the laws--allow counties like mine to reopen some non-essential businesses cautiously, while keep other counties in the states closed.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's silly they take the name because they are mostly conservatives, conservatives who want our young adults to go kill and be killed im foriegn lands. They often want welfare slashed, even if those cuts hirt children. They are often pro-death penalty, with many of them saying "oh well" when innocents are put to death. Amd it's very unusual for this crowd to suddenly be concerned with mental health, as they typically deride it as "all in your head" and telling people just to get over it - in terms of some issues such as LGBT issues they even outright reject what science and medicine have to say. Some even go as far asto claim psychology violates gods stuff amd promotes satanic values.
So, yes, it is obscenely absurd they call themselves "pro-life." The AP has a better approach of just calling them "anti-abortion" to avoid confusion (they also stress referring to pro-choice as "pro-abortion).

Labels aren't slaves to accuracy.
After all, "liberals" are often not all that lberal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Guess you aren't familiar with their rhetoric. Try googling "pro-life slogans" to see why they say they're against abortion.

Giving me the burden of making your case, eh.
Reminds me of the claims that Muslims don't
speak out against terrorism, so they're OK with it.

 

[1213]

...So... so-called pro-lifers: care to explain yourselves? Is your "pro-life" position informing any position on COVID-19? If not, why not?

Speculation is speculation. It is possible that people die, even if all would lose their freedom to live. I think people should be free and the only purpose of government is to protect freedom of people. It means that people, even those who are not born yet, are protected so that no one murders them.

About 140000 people die daily in the world. I think it is not a good reason to stop living normal life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Giving me the burden of making your case, eh.

Think of it more as not being bothered to invest time educating someone when I don't think they're worth the effort.

If you stay uninformed, it's really no skin off my nose.