Link List: Never Not Upset About the "Pro-life" Thing
Retired doctor and author Lodovico Balducci:
I grew up in a small town in Italy where abortion was illegal and could bring criminal charges. Yet in my hometown, everyone knew where to go for an abortion. There was a provider for poor women and a provider for the well-to-do. Most of the time, authorities in this mostly Catholic country left both alone.
I’m realistic enough to know that abortion will not go away in America even if it becomes illegal, just as it never disappeared in the Italy of my youth. I wish that more Democratic candidates would show at least some empathy for people like me who abhor abortion instead of labeling us Neanderthals.
But I have come to recognize that only policies inspired by compassion and justice will have a chance to succeed at making abortion obsolete. Sadly, I — unlike those Trump supporters willing to turn a blind eye — can’t find those policies espoused by most prolife champions.
Just found this Huffington Post article from way back anno domini 2016, quoting a George Carlin skit:
“They’re all in favor of the unborn,” Carlin says in the clip. “They will do anything for the unborn. But once you’re born, you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t want to know about you!” Carlin paced the stage, hyping the audience with assertion that the same conservatives who use pro-family rhetoric object to programs like food aid, free school lunches and cash payments to the nation’s many deeply impoverished families. “No nothing! No neonatal care, no day care, no Head Start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing! If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re preschool, you’re f[****]d!”
History, and extensive studies, have shown that making abortion illegal doesn’t get rid of abortion; it only makes the procedure more dangerous and unregulated, which causes more women to die from complications. According to the World Health Organization, “illegal abortion is usually unsafe abortion.” Anyone who would call themselves “pro-life,” while simultaneously trying to outlaw abortions, making them more deadly, is a hypocrite.
It hits on a lot of issues and then turns to guns. I grew up in a place where it was just a part of life to own guns and no one questioned that. Everyone did it. I trained and tested to have a concealed-carry license. I have experienced first-hand a damning suspension of logic in conservative and Christian circles with regards to guns or weaponry or "prepping" or whatever your brand is.
If you’re pro-life then you can’t support unrestricted gun rights. This one should be the most obvious, but it’s not. Individuals with a pro-life worldview need to take a more reasonable approach to this issue than those who typically control the narrative. If one holds a foundational belief that we need to radically side on the side of life, then we ought be willing to sacrifice some of our rights in order to be true to that guiding principle. The “Christian” life bids you to set aside your own personal rights and interest in the name of others, and we can start here on the issue of gun control. It’s an impossible argument to call oneself pro-life, but to also argue that any citizen ought have access to military grade assault weapons, which are objects designed to take life away. There is no other purpose for guns, beyond killing things. To resist reasonable, middle-ground measures such as background checks, registrations, and mandatory safety training does not indicate that one is holistically on the side of life. In society, we recognize that cars are great tools, but can also harm people. As such, we require a license to operate one, registration of all cars, insurance on cars in case someone is injured, and accountability measures for people who don’t play by the rules. To completely abandon that logic with guns, is beyond fathomable- especially if one claims to be in favor of life. People who are legitimately in favor of life, need to be far more reasonable with compromise on the whole gun discussion.
Here's an excerpt from an informative article on masks from like twenty years ago in June, 2020:
"I think we need a combination of [masks,] distancing, avoiding crowds, avoiding poorly ventilated spaces," says Marr. Even if each of those individual measures is only partially effective, she says, "by the time you add them all on top of each other, you can achieve better numbers for reduction of transmission."
This month, the real world provided anecdotal evidence to back that assessment: The head of the local health department in Springfield, Mo., reported that after two hair stylists tested positive for the coronavirus, none of the 140 clients and six co-workers potentially exposed came down with COVID-19. As The Washington Post reports, officials said the two hair stylists wore cloth masks. According to a statement from the health department in Springfield, the salon also had other policies in place, such as distancing salon chairs and staggering appointments.
Sounds to me like a good opportunity to exercise how pro-caring-for-other's-lives you are. To contrast:
"Remember this: when you catch it you get better, and then you're immune" -- this is a lie. There are already documented cases of people getting coronavirus twice. pic.twitter.com/auXWPN5F90— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 8, 2020
Setting aside the lie about immunity, it's clear from his berating someone for wearing a mask and still getting infected that he thinks, or is at least OK with spreading the misinformation, that masks are supposed to completely protect the wearer. They aren't. It is, apparently, incomprehensible for him to think of doing something for another human being.