Am I the only person with consistent views? (COVID19/abortion)

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

More and more I question whether I live in a simulation.

When talking to people it seems I am the only person with consistent views: I am pro-life (except in extreme cases) and for mandatory mask-wearing in public.

But most people have contradictory views on this. What about you? (read survey questions carefully)
Stay civilized, please.


Just to be clear: This is NOT about COVID19 pregnancies. This is about the motives behind these seemingly unrelated issues. In fact, they are related: individualistic choices at the potential cost of lives.

EDIT: I now realize the way of expressing this thread can be offensive. I apologize for that. We can just discuss whether there is a contradiction. Disregard the poll.

 

[Deleted User]

im not against mandatory mask wearing, in my country its mandatory but only for indoors, i just wish stores had masks for sale on the entrance in case you forgot yours

 

[Xzi]

Being pro-choice and pro-mask mandate is a consistent position. It's consistently in favor of medical science and advancements in that field.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Being pro-choice and pro-mask mandate is a consistent position. It's consistently in favor of medical science and advancements in that field.

How is pro-choice a scientific question? It is a moral one.

 

[FAST6191]

When people say consistent they usually mean don't change with time (usually expressed in American as flip flop).

In this case I am not sure such a setup is logically consistent either, or at least that if I operate with anti abortion (though the reasoning for why some feel that way, never mind the variability in it -- "extreme cases" is a broad line, is massively variable as well -- unnecessary operation, because this book says so, because it is life, only up to, only in these circumstances...) that masks need fall from that.

To that end a question.
What moral principles would you hold that see you derive both positions? I am also curious about something else but can't mention that for concern about tainting the answer.

Does this change any in light of practical effectiveness? (if everybody was a time served and beardless medic/grinding room operative/car painter with high grade gear vs people shoving a sock over their mouth and often not their nose, possibly removing it to sneeze and because they are annoying to wear for long periods, especially cheap ones, usually end up touching their face all the time).

 

[Xzi]

How is pro-choice a scientific question? It is a moral one.

People have been performing abortions since long before the birth of Jesus, it was only ever a matter of medical science catching up to the point where abortions could be performed safely. Limiting or removing access to safe abortion now would not stop people from having them done, it would just mean going back to back-alley abortions using coat hangers instead.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

What moral principles would you hold that see you derive both positions? I am also curious about something else but can't mention that for concern about tainting the answer.

It is about invididual choice at the expense of the life of others.
It is moral to wear a mask as it reduces distance one´s droplets travel when speaking loudly, sneezing, coughing, etc. Exceptions could be e.g. asthma. It is moral not to abort a pregnancy for obvious reasons (unless it threatens the life of the mother, etc).

Does this change any in light of practical effectiveness?

The principle remains but if masks wouldn´t be effective at all or if abortions led to high mortality of the mother, both would be questionable.

 

[yuyuyup]

It's just a troll trap, this conversation is not being offered in good faith. Not hard to spot.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

People have been performing abortions since long before the birth of Jesus, it was only ever a matter of medical science catching up to the point where abortions could be performed safely. Limiting or removing access to safe abortion now would not stop people from having them done, it would just mean going back to back-alley abortions using coat hangers instead.

The amount of abortions would certainly decrease if they weren´t relatively safe for the mother.
You are arguing from consequences for society at alarge. The wearing of a mask in order to decrease your likelihood of infecting others would be moral, even if everyone else would purposefully make holes in their mask (e.g. like a German politician).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It's just a troll trap, this conversation is not being offered in good faith. Not hard to spot.

I am not a troll. Why the ad hominem?
I admit that the thread title is provocative.
So let´s try the softer approach: I think the freedom with regards to abortion and mask-wearing have something in common: individual choices vs enforcement for the purpose of saving lives. Do you disagree? Why?

 

[Xzi]

The amount of abortions would certainly decrease if they weren´t relatively safe for the mother.
You are arguing from consequences for society at alarge. The wearing of a mask in order to decrease your likelihood of infecting others would be moral, even if everyone else would purposefully make holes in their mask (e.g. like a German politician).

It's less a matter of morality, more a matter of harm reduction. Pro-choice and pro-mask mandate are both positions in favor of harm reduction. "Pro-life," however, is an inherently contradictory stance, at least in hyper-capitalist countries where neither the mother nor her baby are provided any sort of guaranteed assistance (or even maternity leave) after birth.

More accurately it would be, "pro-life insofar as providing more bodies for the meat grinder that is the military industrial complex goes," but I suppose that doesn't fit quite as neatly on a bumper sticker.

 

[FAST6191]

It is about invididual choice at the expense of the life of others.
It is moral to wear a mask as it reduces distance one´s droplets travel when speaking loudly, sneezing, coughing, etc. Exceptions could be e.g. asthma. It is moral not to abort a pregnancy for obvious reasons (unless it threatens the life of the mother, etc).


The principle remains but if masks wouldn´t be effective at all or if abortions led to high mortality of the mother, both would be questionable.

That is rather black and white thinking. What are the costs, what are the benefits? There are many things that could be done. Lock everybody in their houses for a month and say if we see you on the streets be prepared to get two in the head -- transmission rates go to very low and it stops in fairly short order (along with a lot of other things too) but that would probably be a step too far, I mean your nuclear power plants would probably melt down so I guess we could make an exception for that.
There are however costs, and the benefits can stand to be questioned too.

As for threat to life of the mother.
I could do this very simple thing or I could not and it would cost you hours of time per day, some $300000 in additional expenses over the next few decades (possibly more like $400000), possibly your education and your career (or at least many options within it), in all likelihood will cost you physical fitness and make it very hard to find a relationship.
That said we had that thread before so I will skip that one in favour of bringing one of those back.

 

[yuyuyup]

The amount of abortions would certainly decrease if they weren´t relatively safe for the mother.
You are arguing from consequences for society at alarge. The wearing of a mask in order to decrease your likelihood of infecting others would be moral, even if everyone else would purposefully make holes in their mask (e.g. like a German politician).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


I am not a troll. Why the ad hominem?
I admit that the thread title is provocative.
So let´s try the softer approach: I think the freedom with regards to abortion and mask-wearing have something in common: individual choices vs enforcement for the purpose of saving lives. Do you disagree? Why?

here you go, a response. You're welcome.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

It's less a matter of morality, more a matter of harm reduction. Pro-choice and pro-mask mandate are both positions in favor of harm reduction. "Pro-life," however, is an inherently contradictory stance, at least in hyper-capitalist countries where neither the mother nor her baby are provided any sort of guaranteed assistance (or even maternity leave) after birth.

More accurately it would be, "pro-life insofar as providing more bodies for the meat grinder that is the military industrial complex goes," but I suppose that doesn't fit quite as neatly on a bumper sticker.

I can see your point. I agree with regards to the US.

 

[omgcat]

trying to claim a stance on abortion and a stance on mask wearing is contradictory is a false equivalency. by getting an abortion, I am not putting potentially hundreds of people's lives at risk. we have case law on this shit from 100 years ago when the Spanish flu hit. hell pro choice can be the same as wearing a mask if one chooses to abort to prevent the mother from dying in the process. The OP's argument is clearly in bad faith. even the argument that wearing a mask is infringing on one's religious rights is BS now that the satanic temple has deemed abortions a religious practice. our country doesn't get to pick and choose which religions are "real", and as such abortion is now protected under religious freedom.
https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784
https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784

 

[wiindsurf]

I'm both pro-life and pro-choice. I personally think abortion is an abomination, however I will always fully respect a woman's choice, regarless of legal standing.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

by getting an abortion, I am not putting potentially hundreds of people's lives at risk.

It is a false equivalency to some extent, I admit that. Let´s imagine you were immune from COVID19. Therefore, neither the abortion of woman XYZ nor her not wearing a mask would affect you. In both cases, it only affects other people (the unborn baby vs infected people).

even the argument that wearing a mask is infringing on one's religious rights is BS now that the satanic temple has deemed abortions a religious practice.

I haven´t made this argument. I am against church/temple... gatherings in times like this.
------

I'm both pro-life and pro-choice. I personally think abortion is an abomination, however I will always fully respect a woman's choice, regarless of legal standing.

What if it was your wife? Couldn´t she say "it is my body" both with regards to mask-wearing and abortion?

 

[crimpshrine]

Being considerate and wearing a mask to both potentially decrease the odds of spreading and receiving a virus seems very reasonable. Do I have any issues with people that I encounter that don't wear masks? No. Will I think they are potentially more selfish? Yeah but they might have a reason.

I also have no interest in telling people not to kill their babies. Even though I believe killing is killing.

I have to say I think it is ironic that there are those that would be so pushy with masks though, but at the same time have no issues with people taking a babies life. (outside of medical reasons/rape) It's like put the damn mask on so you can potentially save peoples lives, but then have no issues with whatever reason a person wants to end the life of a baby over. To me that is hypocritical.

And more times than not it is a moral issue regarding abortion. At least in the USA I believe (unless something has changed) a father really has no rights when it comes to abortion. Which is pretty messed up. How does that not become a morality issue at that point? (Outside the morality of being OK with killing)

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

I have to say I think it is ironic that there are those that would be so pushy with masks though, but at the same time have no issues with people taking a babies life. (outside of medical reasons/rape) It's like put the damn mask on so you can potentially save peoples lives, but then have no issues with whatever reason a person wants to end the life of a baby over. To me that is hypocritical.

Exactly. I also don´t get how people can be mask resisting "heroes" even though they claim they are pro-life. That´s why I opened this thread. It was not in bad faith.

 

[Pikm]

How is pro-choice a scientific question? It is a moral one.

Because all pro-life people are retards who advocate for positions like forced re-implantation of ectopic pregnancies even though no such procedure exists or even should exist.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Because all pro-life people are retards who advocate for positions like forced re-implantation of ectopic pregnancies even though no such procedure exists or even should exist.

That is factually wrong. I am against a procedure like this.

E.g. it is like sb saying "All pro-choice people are monsters. They would choose an abortion even if it were possible to bring the baby to term with an artificial womb one day."
I would not make this statement, because it is a generalization which is obviously incorrect