For leftists during coronavirus time, every life but one matters

 

In Democrat-run states or localities that have coronavirus-induced shutdowns, Democrats deem guns inessential, despite the Second Amendment's explicit recognition that people have an inherent right to bear arms.  At the same time, they deem abortion essential, even though it exists in the Constitution only if one is sophisticated enough to recognize the deeper meaning behind emanations and penumbras.  The opposite is true in Republican-run states that are starting to shut down.  There, the gun stores are open, but the abortionists are being shuttered.

Before getting into the weeds on abortion during a coronavirus pandemic, we should all know that The New York Times editorial board has been at the forefront of demanding that Trump shut down the entire United States in order to save American lives (emphasis added):

President Trump needs to call for a two-week shelter-in-place order, now, as part of a coherent national strategy for the coronavirus to protect Americans and their livelihoods.

[snip]

As the president's own health advisers warn, the worst of the coronavirus pandemic is yet to come. The nation's slow and spotty response has allowed the virus to spread to every state. Modeling by researchers at the Imperial College London indicates that upward of two million lives could be lost to the pandemic unless America somehow manages to "flatten the curve." [Note that this modeling became obsolete two days after the Times wrote those words.]

[snip]

All this may seem like an overreaction to a health crisis that many Americans aren't yet feeling. But though it has already wasted time and opportunities to contain the coronavirus, the United States still has a chance to apply hard lessons learned by China, Italy and other nations. A nationwide lockdown is the only tactic left to parry a viral adversary that is constantly on the move, and to buy the time for medical workers to prepare for what comes next.

Wow!  The Times really cares about every life, doesn't it?  It's willing to shut down the whole U.S. economy, even if that means more lives lost later to depression, suicide, poverty, drug addiction, and even famine.  None of that matters if the Times can save just one life.

Still, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and when you're the Times, while all lives are equal, some lives are more equal than others.  That's why, on Thursday, The New York Times' editorial board weighed in on the side of Planned Parenthood, arguing, "Make Abortion More Available During the Pandemic — Not Less."  Then, with a chutzpah one can only admire, the editors boldly stated that killing babies is a necessity because the pandemic is killing people!

It's hardly new for anti-abortion politicians to seize on any excuse to try to restrict women's bodily autonomy, but it is a new low to exploit a pandemic that's already cost hundreds of American lives, and threatens many thousands more.

You read that correctly: stop using the fact that people are dying as an excuse to stop us from killing babies!  The theory behind this dazzling logic failure is that preventing abortions can be hard on some women:

The "nonessential" bit is obvious nonsense and the delay a transparent attempt to put abortion out of reach for those who need it. As several major health care groups noted in a joint statement last week: "Abortion is an essential component of comprehensive health care. It is also a time-sensitive service for which a delay of several weeks, or in some cases days, may increase the risks or potentially make it completely inaccessible. The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person's life, health and well-being."

Having a baby will indeed affect a woman's life.  For some, motherhood is wonderful.  For others, not so much, and for them, adoption is always a possibility.  But here's the deal: while it's true that some women may be unhappy if they have a baby, it's a guaranteed certainty that someone will die if a woman has an abortion.  Logic, folks.  It's logic.

Believe it or not, the opinion gets worse after that.  Again, remember the Times' reverence for life as you read this (emphasis added):

In the coming weeks, unintended pregnancies could rise as a result of people being stuck in their homes, potentially without consistent access to birth control. Among those who would choose to have an abortion — there were about 860,000 abortions in America in 2017 — an increasing number might not be able to get those services, either because of the dangers of traveling (for patients and abortion providers alike), a growing inability to afford the procedure or the need to take care of homebound children and other family members.

There's more nonsense in the opinion, but, after that paragraph, is there anything left to say?

 

In Democrat-run states or localities that have coronavirus-induced shutdowns, Democrats deem guns inessential, despite the Second Amendment's explicit recognition that people have an inherent right to bear arms.  At the same time, they deem abortion essential, even though it exists in the Constitution only if one is sophisticated enough to recognize the deeper meaning behind emanations and penumbras.  The opposite is true in Republican-run states that are starting to shut down.  There, the gun stores are open, but the abortionists are being shuttered.

Before getting into the weeds on abortion during a coronavirus pandemic, we should all know that The New York Times editorial board has been at the forefront of demanding that Trump shut down the entire United States in order to save American lives (emphasis added):

President Trump needs to call for a two-week shelter-in-place order, now, as part of a coherent national strategy for the coronavirus to protect Americans and their livelihoods.

[snip]

As the president's own health advisers warn, the worst of the coronavirus pandemic is yet to come. The nation's slow and spotty response has allowed the virus to spread to every state. Modeling by researchers at the Imperial College London indicates that upward of two million lives could be lost to the pandemic unless America somehow manages to "flatten the curve." [Note that this modeling became obsolete two days after the Times wrote those words.]

[snip]

All this may seem like an overreaction to a health crisis that many Americans aren't yet feeling. But though it has already wasted time and opportunities to contain the coronavirus, the United States still has a chance to apply hard lessons learned by China, Italy and other nations. A nationwide lockdown is the only tactic left to parry a viral adversary that is constantly on the move, and to buy the time for medical workers to prepare for what comes next.

Wow!  The Times really cares about every life, doesn't it?  It's willing to shut down the whole U.S. economy, even if that means more lives lost later to depression, suicide, poverty, drug addiction, and even famine.  None of that matters if the Times can save just one life.

Still, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and when you're the Times, while all lives are equal, some lives are more equal than others.  That's why, on Thursday, The New York Times' editorial board weighed in on the side of Planned Parenthood, arguing, "Make Abortion More Available During the Pandemic — Not Less."  Then, with a chutzpah one can only admire, the editors boldly stated that killing babies is a necessity because the pandemic is killing people!

It's hardly new for anti-abortion politicians to seize on any excuse to try to restrict women's bodily autonomy, but it is a new low to exploit a pandemic that's already cost hundreds of American lives, and threatens many thousands more.

You read that correctly: stop using the fact that people are dying as an excuse to stop us from killing babies!  The theory behind this dazzling logic failure is that preventing abortions can be hard on some women:

The "nonessential" bit is obvious nonsense and the delay a transparent attempt to put abortion out of reach for those who need it. As several major health care groups noted in a joint statement last week: "Abortion is an essential component of comprehensive health care. It is also a time-sensitive service for which a delay of several weeks, or in some cases days, may increase the risks or potentially make it completely inaccessible. The consequences of being unable to obtain an abortion profoundly impact a person's life, health and well-being."

Having a baby will indeed affect a woman's life.  For some, motherhood is wonderful.  For others, not so much, and for them, adoption is always a possibility.  But here's the deal: while it's true that some women may be unhappy if they have a baby, it's a guaranteed certainty that someone will die if a woman has an abortion.  Logic, folks.  It's logic.

Believe it or not, the opinion gets worse after that.  Again, remember the Times' reverence for life as you read this (emphasis added):

In the coming weeks, unintended pregnancies could rise as a result of people being stuck in their homes, potentially without consistent access to birth control. Among those who would choose to have an abortion — there were about 860,000 abortions in America in 2017 — an increasing number might not be able to get those services, either because of the dangers of traveling (for patients and abortion providers alike), a growing inability to afford the procedure or the need to take care of homebound children and other family members.

There's more nonsense in the opinion, but, after that paragraph, is there anything left to say?