Coronavirus


Joe Bagadonuts

Well-Known Member
you obviously didn’t look where I told you to look. Do your homework.
You obviously didn't suggest that I look there until a separate post that you sent later, and I'm not doing homework that you assign anyway. I think it's meaningless that you ask me to search out some random and anonymous dope who makes a dumb statement. Your original post that I responded to implied that right-to-lifers were now callously suggesting that old people's lives have no value. Your claim remains unsubstantiated. Your quote was made up, just as I had suspected.
 


RandyForRubio

Well-Known Member
I’m guessing when we’re all said and done we finish with over 500,000 deaths. One million is a definite possibility.

I'd bet we're under 250,000.

And that's hedging it, imo. I really doubt it goes over 150,000.

Still a lot of people.

It sounds like even for those who don't die, there can be some serious long term issues. That will be interesting to follow.
 

silesian

Well-Known Member
You obviously didn't suggest that I look there until a separate post that you sent later, and I'm not doing homework that you assign anyway. I think it's meaningless that you ask me to search out some random and anonymous dope who makes a dumb statement. Your original post that I responded to implied that right-to-lifers were now callously suggesting that old people's lives have no value. Your claim remains unsubstantiated. Your quote was made up, just as I had suspected.


Anyone who is advocating for stopping lockdowns or shutdowns or social distancing for economic reasons is saying that they will trade lives for prosperity.

I’m not even arguing that this is wrong.

Im just saying that people who profess to be pro life cannot make this argument without moral difficulties.
 

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
Anyone who is advocating for stopping lockdowns or shutdowns or social distancing for economic reasons is saying that they will trade lives for prosperity.

I’m not even arguing that this is wrong.

Im just saying that people who profess to be pro life cannot make this argument without moral difficulties.
Is there a difference between loss of life as the intended (and actively pursued) consequence vs. loss of life as a recognized risk? My assumption is that your argument is that they are the same. If so, it makes for the automobile accident fatalities as a calculated risk the same scenario, if we’re assuming equivalence of the first two.
 

silesian

Well-Known Member
Is there a difference between loss of life as the intended (and actively pursued) consequence vs. loss of life as a recognized risk? My assumption is that your argument is that they are the same. If so, it makes for the automobile accident fatalities as a calculated risk the same scenario, if we’re assuming equivalence of the first two.

Nah, I’m just pointing out hypocrisy of people who say there is no price worth paying for a human life advocating for a policy that will surely lead to many deaths. My morals see the ambiguity that you rightly point out.
 

infection

Well-Known Member
Staff member
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
Nah, I’m just pointing out hypocrisy of people who say there is no price worth paying for a human life advocating for a policy that will surely lead to many deaths. My morals see the ambiguity that you rightly point out.
Would you grant that one could believe loss of life as the sole intended consequence is different than loss of life as a result of elevated risk factors? Would pro-lifers be inconsistent in belief by opposing the loss of life via abortion while also voting for raising the speed limit on the highway? [not arguing scale here, just principle]
 

silesian

Well-Known Member
Consider the argument posed by Rusty Reno in the pages of the magazine he edits, the largely conservative Catholic First Things. Reno criticizes New York governor Andrew Cuomo for saying “I did everything we could do. And if everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy.” To Reno, Cuomo’s statement represents a “disastrous sentimentalism” because “there are many things more precious than life.”

Yes, there are causes worth laying down one’s life for. But to think of today’s social-isolation practices in those terms is a bizarre and extreme misjudgment. In his topsy-turvy interpretation, Reno believes the temporary stay-at-home measures that New York has put in place to protect lives are actually allowing a fear of death to displace other things we should care about. Claiming that the news media and public-health officials are “conspir[ing] to heighten the atmosphere of crisis,” Reno says that Satan would approve and that “the mass shutdown of society to fight the spread of COVID-19 creates a perverse, even demonic atmosphere.”
 

silesian

Well-Known Member
Would you grant that one could believe loss of life as the sole intended consequence is different than loss of life as a result of elevated risk factors? Would pro-lifers be inconsistent in belief by opposing the loss of life via abortion while also voting for raising the speed limit on the highway? [not arguing scale here, just principle]

You are one smart dude. I love your reasoning and it is consistent with my moral code.

My answer is that it depends on how that person is pro life. If they say “we should do whatever practical to avoid unwanted pregnancy and abortions” (kinda my view) then you can consistently say “I’m okay with raising the speed limit” and Be logically and morally consistent.

if one argues against abortion by making statements such as “we must save every life at any costs because every life is sacred.” With an inflexible and absolutist position, this person has difficulty supporting raising speed limits, knowing that deaths will occur, even if these deaths are stochastic.
 

Top