Pro-life leaders laud Trump for pulling money from WHO. Report

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Clearly it is immoral to lie. And it is clearly immoral to deliberately intentionally will the death of others for whatever motivation, greed or otherwise. You are right to compare this to abortion, which is the direct, deliberate, willful killing of another.

And you may be right that’s what people are secretly intending to do or you may be wrong. But simply advocating for the policies at issue is not necessarily evidence of it. It’s equally as unfair to call proponents of further quarantines as wanting to destroy society to implement socialism or stick it to Trump. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are both good and ill intended actors on both sides of the debate, but also those viewing the situation with common, good principles and coming to different conclusions. Not every political question is one of good versus evil–rather, they can (and should) be about which morally upright measures are best to achieve the greatest common good.

Your analysis of the situation and what the best course of action is may be the best. Or it may not and the alternative one might be. Someone in good faith, operating from common moral principles, could come to either conclusion, depending on how they interpret the facts. No one is omniscient when it comes to understanding and interpreting factual circumstances. That’s why politics is a thing.

Again, in every analysis of the common good, there almost always needs to be some form of toleration of negatives to advance the total positive good. People operating from a common morality will always disagree about the specifics of how to do this–at its best, this is what politics is all about. But toleration of the risk of unintended death in and of itself is qualitatively different than the willed, direct, and deliberate infliction of it on an innocent person.
 
AdamP88 said:
Says you. That statement in itself is proof that you have fallen for the “overpopulation” myth. People in those countries consume far less than we do in the West. There is no good reason why their populations should be considered unsustainable.
Click to expand...
Easy. In the west we have the wealth to buy food from afar and ship it in. They don’t.

As to over-population, it’s a subjective idea.

In many places, the local populace has completely outstripped the capacity of the land to feed them. Is that overpopulation?

The current mass extinction of other species on this earth is driven overwhelmingly by human activity. Is that over-population?

As all of human history before 1800 AD took place with less than a billion of us on the planet at any time, there’s a decent argument to be made.
AdamP88 said:
We are not going to agree. In your view, children are the problem.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Children are a blessing.

An extremely burdensome, expensive blessing. I have 3.

Don’t have them if you can’t afford them.
 
Last edited:
This isn’t the first pandemic in modern times. Researchers have been keenly interested in how jurisdictions responded to previous outbreaks. Seattle put measures in place significant measures not much different to what are being put in place in many areas, and indeed, managed the pandemic very well. I’ve posted the following article a couple of times:


The fact is that physical distancing, preventing large gatherings and isolating of infected or exposed individuals works, and while in the short term it has some significant social and economic impacts, in the medium and long term it actually works.

So we have proven methods, and then we have people that just imagine that if we crank things up, either a highly contagious pathogen will behave itself, or that we just declare certain groups to be expendable, that everything will be fine.

I go with science. I don’t care what politicians think, and frankly, responsible politicians shouldn’t care what they think either. But one thing I’m going to state pretty openly, allowing a pathogen to spread through a population and kill indiscriminately isn’t my definition of pro-life, and I can’t sort out how anyone can square that circle. That’s why I think Pro-life, at least in the US, really means “Pro-Trump”.
 
Trump Derangement Syndrome set in before the 2016 election - a pandemic that masks and distancing do not seem to help. Actually, WHO and CDC told us NOT to wear masks. Some heads should roll there. Since they are apparently not, cutting their lifeblood might just get their attention.
 
Actually, a well made homemade mask is pretty effective against s this virus. It needs to be made of two layers of a tight weave fabric and the ability to place a filter layer between them…coffee filters or paper towels work well. The N95 blocks 95% of virus. A well made and well fitting homemade mask blocks %85. How is that not effective? Even using a single layer mask offers some protection…about 50%

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
niceatheist said:
I go with science. I don’t care what politicians think, and frankly, responsible politicians shouldn’t care what they think either. But one thing I’m going to state pretty openly, allowing a pathogen to spread through a population and kill indiscriminately isn’t my definition of pro-life, and I can’t sort out how anyone can square that circle.
Click to expand...
For me it’s simple. If my government was pro life I would support the measures. They aren’t so I’m living by their logic. If they can’t tell women what to do with their bodies, I’m not going to let them tell me what I can do with my body now.
 
1cthlctrth said:
The WHO said in its statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation that “services related to reproductive health are considered to be part of essential services during the COVID-19 outbreak.”
Click to expand...
And my country cancels screening for breast cervical and bowel cancer. I consider that essential.
 
mdgspencer said:
Pro-life leaders are happy WHO’s funding is cut because it is aggressively promoting abortion.

The World Health Organization ( WHO ) is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health. (wikipedia)
Click to expand...
WHO is Internationalist… Globalist -
ProAbortion - Murder: babes in the womb
The Catholic Church is Opposed to the Grave Sin of Abortion
_
 

“The WHO has long been supportive of compelling countries to recognize abortion rights, even against the wishes of their people. Forcing countries to categorize this crime against humanity as a human right flies in the face of science and the right to life. I am proud that our country will no longer be sending taxpayer dollars to support this radical regime,” said Allan Parker, a pro-life advocate with the Justice Foundation.

WHO received heavy criticism in April when it falsely claimed abortion is considered an essential service during the coronavirus pandemic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top