Coronavirus news

[Dan Fienen]

OK, so abortion after 24 weeks is a legal killing. By your definition of human anyone can legally contract for the killing of a human being in America.




Because these homicides are legal, does that make them morally acceptable?

[Robert Johnson]

Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

That's a bold assertion. Bold assertions need evidence. Got a cite?

[Brian Stoffregen]

OK, so abortion after 24 weeks is a legal killing. By your definition of human anyone can legally contract for the killing of a human being in America.




Because these homicides are legal, does that make them morally acceptable?

Sometimes.

[Dave Benke]

Vaccine mandates are ready to take affect in NY today.  They are already preparing for widespread staff shortages.  As noted by one news outlet: "Governor Kathy Hochul said a state emergency declaration and other options, including calling in health care workers from the National Guard, are on the table to address any potential hospital staffing shortages."

I understand the reasoning behind the mandates, but am struggling with whether these mandates will not create crises equal to the one they are trying to solve.  Healthcare is already woefully understaffed across the nation.  And there are looming mandates in the federal sector, including the military. Gov. Hochul may utilize the National Guard, but what if they are mandated (and they may be), and many leave the service rather than be forced to take the shot?  As one who works in a volunteer fire department I can assure you that if we were mandated we would lose personnel, men we cannot replace.  We, too, are understaffed.

I think that as mandates are rolled out across the nation are going to see other issues arise, and the government may eventually need to backtrack on this to retain much needed frontline workers. 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-prepares-for-possible-staff-shortages-as-covid-vaccine-mandate-nears/ar-AAOOVvt

What are the reasons given by the folks you work alongside in the volunteer fire dept. for not receiving the vaccine, given the emergency service nature of the responsibility?

Dave Benke

I have not asked them.  It is a sensitive topic with many, and can be rather divisive in many settings. Even in my church I know of some who have not been vaccinated, and that includes at least one healthcare worker. I suspect, however, that it probably stems from the same general distrust we see in others: feeling the vaccine was 'rushed,' that it will have unintended side-effects that have not been anticipated, etc. I am not sure how many got the vaccine from my department and how many did not.  It was optional from the beginning.  My chief and I did get it, and I know that because we received our shots the same day.

First, what I/we have done is to announce that we are vaccinated and that we encourage everyone eligible to be vaccinated.  By sending that message and reinforcing with people coming forward when they've received the vaccination(s) with their stories, others have definitely indicated that they got the message and will be vaccinated, and have then reported back.

A question is whether others have not told us/me about their vaccination status because they know I/we encourage vaccination and feel embarrassed or ashamed or put upon.  I would say by and large they speak to me or someone else privately and simply say they're not ready, or unsure, or are waiting awhile.  In other words, it's not a divisive conversation.  In the setting of congregation and neighborhood/community, almost all of those folks are non-white. 

Are there non-white people who don't like vaccinations of any kind?  Yes.  We have those conversations with would-be parents in the school setting about the flu shot, which is mandatory for children in NYC unless there's a medical exception to enter day care at age 3 or 4.  Mostly the negativity is around the flu shot, not all shots, and in some cases, their physician advises to wait until age 5 for the flu shot.  The staff, on the other hand, must have the flu shot unless there's medical exception, and there are some allergic issues with that shot.

In NYS, the new governor is not backing away from vaccination mandates, and in NYC there has been a lifting of the stay in mandatory vaccination for schools, so the teacher have until Friday. 

In a pastoral role, my own opinion is that it's possible to remain in a pastoral posture even as you encourage people to be vaccinated and listen to reasons why folks aren't.  It's not that complicated.

Dave Benke

[Steven W Bohler]

Vaccine mandates are ready to take affect in NY today.  They are already preparing for widespread staff shortages.  As noted by one news outlet: "Governor Kathy Hochul said a state emergency declaration and other options, including calling in health care workers from the National Guard, are on the table to address any potential hospital staffing shortages."

I understand the reasoning behind the mandates, but am struggling with whether these mandates will not create crises equal to the one they are trying to solve.  Healthcare is already woefully understaffed across the nation.  And there are looming mandates in the federal sector, including the military. Gov. Hochul may utilize the National Guard, but what if they are mandated (and they may be), and many leave the service rather than be forced to take the shot?  As one who works in a volunteer fire department I can assure you that if we were mandated we would lose personnel, men we cannot replace.  We, too, are understaffed.

I think that as mandates are rolled out across the nation are going to see other issues arise, and the government may eventually need to backtrack on this to retain much needed frontline workers. 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-prepares-for-possible-staff-shortages-as-covid-vaccine-mandate-nears/ar-AAOOVvt

What are the reasons given by the folks you work alongside in the volunteer fire dept. for not receiving the vaccine, given the emergency service nature of the responsibility?

Dave Benke

I have not asked them.  It is a sensitive topic with many, and can be rather divisive in many settings. Even in my church I know of some who have not been vaccinated, and that includes at least one healthcare worker. I suspect, however, that it probably stems from the same general distrust we see in others: feeling the vaccine was 'rushed,' that it will have unintended side-effects that have not been anticipated, etc. I am not sure how many got the vaccine from my department and how many did not.  It was optional from the beginning.  My chief and I did get it, and I know that because we received our shots the same day.

First, what I/we have done is to announce that we are vaccinated and that we encourage everyone eligible to be vaccinated.  By sending that message and reinforcing with people coming forward when they've received the vaccination(s) with their stories, others have definitely indicated that they got the message and will be vaccinated, and have then reported back.

A question is whether others have not told us/me about their vaccination status because they know I/we encourage vaccination and feel embarrassed or ashamed or put upon.  I would say by and large they speak to me or someone else privately and simply say they're not ready, or unsure, or are waiting awhile.  In other words, it's not a divisive conversation.  In the setting of congregation and neighborhood/community, almost all of those folks are non-white. 

Are there non-white people who don't like vaccinations of any kind?  Yes.  We have those conversations with would-be parents in the school setting about the flu shot, which is mandatory for children in NYC unless there's a medical exception to enter day care at age 3 or 4.  Mostly the negativity is around the flu shot, not all shots, and in some cases, their physician advises to wait until age 5 for the flu shot.  The staff, on the other hand, must have the flu shot unless there's medical exception, and there are some allergic issues with that shot.

In NYS, the new governor is not backing away from vaccination mandates, and in NYC there has been a lifting of the stay in mandatory vaccination for schools, so the teacher have until Friday. 

In a pastoral role, my own opinion is that it's possible to remain in a pastoral posture even as you encourage people to be vaccinated and listen to reasons why folks aren't.  It's not that complicated.

Dave Benke

There is quite a difference between listening to someone who offers their reasons and asking (or, in some cases, even demanding) to know the reason(s).  And while a person may think he is not demanding, that is sometimes how it comes across.  Especially when the unvaccinated is bombarded with questions in virtually every sphere of life: work, friends, even entertainment.  After hearing the same questions, one is bound to get a bit defensive.  Especially about something that is as personal and intimate as one's medical decisions.

[David Garner]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

At conception, a separate, whole and distinct human person is brought into existence.  Shorthand that how you will, it happens well before the baby is able to breathe on its own outside the womb.

Yes, at conception, a separate, whole and distinct human DNA is created. (It can even happen in a petri dish!) However, unless it is implanted properly in a woman's womb, it will not survive. If it is implanted and the mother (another separate, whole and distinct human) dies, so will the child. It is not a viable human being. It cannot live on its own. If the fetus dies and is not removed, the decaying body can poison and kill the mother. For about nine months, it shares a life with the mother. It is not a separate life.

What is a "separate, whole and distinct human DNA?"  Is the human person somehow separable from the human body?  And what is a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby but a whole and distinct human body?

It seems your anthropology, if applied to Our Lord, could quickly slip into Nestorianism, a charge that has been leveled at you before.  I'd advise thinking this through a bit.  That's not to mention the rank utilitarianism in your last several sentences.  And that is not to mention the sophistry of considering a separate, whole and distinct human organism to be something other than a "human being."  Viability is largely a legal construct.  It simply means the separate, whole and distinct human organism (in other words, a human person) cannot live on its own outside the womb.  But the same is true for infants lacking material support, so your argument ends up folding itself into infanticide, since there is no logical reason to grant rights at "viability" if one instead wishes to grant them at "ability to work and produce," and so we can argue that prior to the age children can be totally self-sufficient, we can kill them.

[peter_speckhard]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

At conception, a separate, whole and distinct human person is brought into existence.  Shorthand that how you will, it happens well before the baby is able to breathe on its own outside the womb.

Yes, at conception, a separate, whole and distinct human DNA is created. (It can even happen in a petri dish!) However, unless it is implanted properly in a woman's womb, it will not survive. If it is implanted and the mother (another separate, whole and distinct human) dies, so will the child. It is not a viable human being. It cannot live on its own. If the fetus dies and is not removed, the decaying body can poison and kill the mother. For about nine months, it shares a life with the mother. It is not a separate life.

What is a "separate, whole and distinct human DNA?"  Is the human person somehow separable from the human body?  And what is a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby but a whole and distinct human body?

It seems your anthropology, if applied to Our Lord, could quickly slip into Nestorianism, a charge that has been leveled at you before.  I'd advise thinking this through a bit.  That's not to mention the rank utilitarianism in your last several sentences.  And that is not to mention the sophistry of considering a separate, whole and distinct human organism to be something other than a "human being."  Viability is largely a legal construct.  It simply means the separate, whole and distinct human organism (in other words, a human person) cannot live on its own outside the womb.  But the same is true for infants lacking material support, so your argument ends up folding itself into infanticide, since there is no logical reason to grant rights at "viability" if one instead wishes to grant them at "ability to work and produce," and so we can argue that prior to the age children can be totally self-sufficient, we can kill them.

It also means we can kill the handicapped, since many of them are not able to be self-sufficient and thus are not viable. I hear some people argue for abortion in the case of incest on the grounds that it leads to birth defects and I always ask why they think people with birth defects can be killed.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Bohler, there are numerous health issues which are not private but a matter of public health. Your plea to privacy regarding medical matters won’t work here.
You don’t have an automatic right to work for any given company, so the company can ask you whether or not you are vaccinated.
As for being questioned by friends and associates, why not? You can simply say “I’m not telling you.“ Or you can take part in the discussion.
We are now up to about 72 or 73% of the population being vaccinated. And the percentages for non-white and/or Hispanic communities is growing rapidly and is about the same.
There are millions and millions who are vaccinated, And I’ll bet the world numbers run into the billions. Common sense would suggest that any terrible side effects or consequences would be well known by now.
So I don’t think that fear of bad after effects grows wings as a reason to refuse to be vaccinated.

[pastorg1@aol.com]

“Democrat liberal atheist” but my kinda atheist…

“Early next month, one day before the Women's March, an outspoken pro-life Democrat will launch a new organization dedicated to uniting feminists and progressives against abortion and pressuring the Democratic Party to oppose the killing of unborn babies.

Terrisa Bukovinac, a self-identified Democrat liberal atheist who founded Pro-Life San Francisco and temporarily served as the president of Democrats for Life of America, is set to announce the name of her new organization at a launch event in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, featuring 20 young progressive activists. Bukovinac explained to Fox News, "The Democratic establishment is completely out of touch with their constituents on the issue of abortion."

Peter (For us- not agin’ us kinda thing…) Garrison

[peter_speckhard]

Pastor Bohler, there are numerous health issues which are not private but a matter of public health. Your plea to privacy regarding medical matters won’t work here.
You don’t have an automatic right to work for any given company, so the company can ask you whether or not you are vaccinated.
As for being questioned by friends and associates, why not? You can simply say “I’m not telling you.“ Or you can take part in the discussion.
We are now up to about 72 or 73% of the population being vaccinated. And the percentages for non-white and/or Hispanic communities is growing rapidly and is about the same.
There are millions and millions who are vaccinated, And I’ll bet the world numbers run into the billions. Common sense would suggest that any terrible side effects or consequences would be well known by now.
So I don’t think that fear of bad after effects grows wings as a reason to refuse to be vaccinated.

The point is that people aren’t answerable to you and therefore do not need to submit their reasoning for your approval. Asking them is simply butting into their business on a sensitive topic about which people can and have grown defensive. I’m vaccinated, and when asked my status on that by someone who needs to know, say, a shut-in I’m visiting, I’m glad to put them at ease. When asked by some random person I’m more inclined not to say.

[Steven W Bohler]

Pastor Bohler, there are numerous health issues which are not private but a matter of public health. Your plea to privacy regarding medical matters won’t work here.
You don’t have an automatic right to work for any given company, so the company can ask you whether or not you are vaccinated.
As for being questioned by friends and associates, why not? You can simply say “I’m not telling you.“ Or you can take part in the discussion.
We are now up to about 72 or 73% of the population being vaccinated. And the percentages for non-white and/or Hispanic communities is growing rapidly and is about the same.
There are millions and millions who are vaccinated, And I’ll bet the world numbers run into the billions. Common sense would suggest that any terrible side effects or consequences would be well known by now.
So I don’t think that fear of bad after effects grows wings as a reason to refuse to be vaccinated.

The point is that people aren’t answerable to you and therefore do not need to submit their reasoning for your approval. Asking them is simply butting into their business on a sensitive topic about which people can and have grown defensive. I’m vaccinated, and when asked my status on that by someone who needs to know, say, a shut-in I’m visiting, I’m glad to put them at ease. When asked by some random person I’m more inclined not to say.

Exactly.  An unvaccinated person I know has told me that her response now is simply to say "I do not discuss this because there are people on both sides of the issue that get upset no matter what the answer".  And she is right: I have experienced people get upset when another says he is not vaccinated (kinda like the ranting and raving and hysterics of Rev. Austin here).  And I have experienced people get upset when another says he IS vaccinated (the "you don't know what you are putting into your body!" response).  Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.  So, for this woman, the wisest course is simply to refuse to answer.  Of course, usually people assume that means she is not vaccinated (which, in her case, is true), but not really fair either.

[Dave Benke]

Vaccine mandates are ready to take affect in NY today.  They are already preparing for widespread staff shortages.  As noted by one news outlet: "Governor Kathy Hochul said a state emergency declaration and other options, including calling in health care workers from the National Guard, are on the table to address any potential hospital staffing shortages."

I understand the reasoning behind the mandates, but am struggling with whether these mandates will not create crises equal to the one they are trying to solve.  Healthcare is already woefully understaffed across the nation.  And there are looming mandates in the federal sector, including the military. Gov. Hochul may utilize the National Guard, but what if they are mandated (and they may be), and many leave the service rather than be forced to take the shot?  As one who works in a volunteer fire department I can assure you that if we were mandated we would lose personnel, men we cannot replace.  We, too, are understaffed.

I think that as mandates are rolled out across the nation are going to see other issues arise, and the government may eventually need to backtrack on this to retain much needed frontline workers. 


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ny-prepares-for-possible-staff-shortages-as-covid-vaccine-mandate-nears/ar-AAOOVvt

What are the reasons given by the folks you work alongside in the volunteer fire dept. for not receiving the vaccine, given the emergency service nature of the responsibility?

Dave Benke

I have not asked them.  It is a sensitive topic with many, and can be rather divisive in many settings. Even in my church I know of some who have not been vaccinated, and that includes at least one healthcare worker. I suspect, however, that it probably stems from the same general distrust we see in others: feeling the vaccine was 'rushed,' that it will have unintended side-effects that have not been anticipated, etc. I am not sure how many got the vaccine from my department and how many did not.  It was optional from the beginning.  My chief and I did get it, and I know that because we received our shots the same day.

First, what I/we have done is to announce that we are vaccinated and that we encourage everyone eligible to be vaccinated.  By sending that message and reinforcing with people coming forward when they've received the vaccination(s) with their stories, others have definitely indicated that they got the message and will be vaccinated, and have then reported back.

A question is whether others have not told us/me about their vaccination status because they know I/we encourage vaccination and feel embarrassed or ashamed or put upon.  I would say by and large they speak to me or someone else privately and simply say they're not ready, or unsure, or are waiting awhile.  In other words, it's not a divisive conversation.  In the setting of congregation and neighborhood/community, almost all of those folks are non-white. 

Are there non-white people who don't like vaccinations of any kind?  Yes.  We have those conversations with would-be parents in the school setting about the flu shot, which is mandatory for children in NYC unless there's a medical exception to enter day care at age 3 or 4.  Mostly the negativity is around the flu shot, not all shots, and in some cases, their physician advises to wait until age 5 for the flu shot.  The staff, on the other hand, must have the flu shot unless there's medical exception, and there are some allergic issues with that shot.

In NYS, the new governor is not backing away from vaccination mandates, and in NYC there has been a lifting of the stay in mandatory vaccination for schools, so the teacher have until Friday. 

In a pastoral role, my own opinion is that it's possible to remain in a pastoral posture even as you encourage people to be vaccinated and listen to reasons why folks aren't.  It's not that complicated.

Dave Benke

There is quite a difference between listening to someone who offers their reasons and asking (or, in some cases, even demanding) to know the reason(s).  And while a person may think he is not demanding, that is sometimes how it comes across.  Especially when the unvaccinated is bombarded with questions in virtually every sphere of life: work, friends, even entertainment.  After hearing the same questions, one is bound to get a bit defensive.  Especially about something that is as personal and intimate as one's medical decisions.

You've been a pastor for awhile, now, SW, and I for awhile longer.  One of the things that happens in the pastoral relationship with people over time is that they appreciate prayers for their medical condition, health issues, and "doctoring."   It is of course a pastoral privilege to be hearing that level of someone's thoughts and fears, but I would say people tell their pastors more, not less, about their medical conditions and needs sometimes than folks in their own family.  And, by the way, are not happy when you don't respond or show up at the hospital, or today, contact them on the day of the out-patient procedure for prayer.   

In the specific instance of vaccination, I specifically don't think the pastoral approach is to "bombard" folks with questions.  It's more of a listening exercise.  And at least for me, it usually ends with the person asking for a prayer for continued guidance and discernment.  Again, less about defensiveness and more about asking for guidance and direction. 

Dave Benke

[The Yak]

If you bothered to read any actual conservatives or libertarians, you’d see them to be especially interested in science. Be it space exploration, nuclear power, GMOs, and hard science stuff or “soft science” about human behavior, gender studies, etc, it is usually the left cherry-picking what counts as “science” by defining the leftist position as the osiruon of science. There are people who think biological sex is a construct. They are all anti-science, and they are all on the left. Same with the biology of life’s origins. The pro-choice position is anti-science. The whole reputation of the right being anti science stems mainly from the global warming debate.

I understand the political sympathies and the preference for conservative and Republican views. I don't understand the denials of plain facts. But I guess we have to live with it. (I don't know what theological value belongs to either end of the debate. Seems to me to be none whatsoever.)

Peace, JOHN

Plain facts: human life begins at conception. Biological sex is a matter of objective reality, not a construct. The standard NYT shtick that the GOP is anti-science is really just a matter of trusting the establishment. Rand Paul is a better scientist than Fauci. He regularly points out the real science that contradicts Fauci's propaganda. Sen. Paul is not anti-science, he is anti-Fauci's BS. But for readers of the NYT, to gainsay Fauci is to be anti-science.

Agreed on conception.

Not agreed otherwise. Senator Paul's view is not shared by 99% of physicians.

Still, neither understanding has anything to do with church, theology, Lutheran, or the purpose of this Forum.

Peace, JOHN

I'm not sure about physicians, but based on a University of Chicago study, 95% of biologists agree that life begins at fertilization:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

As the document points out, the operative question is when the fetus deserves legal consideration.  IMO, this question was answered in the the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Nope. Both the sperm and the egg have to be living for there to be fertilization. That is, "life" has to exist before fertilization. Biblically, and somewhat through history,  "life" was thought to begin when the beings were given "the breath of life." Even today, "viability" is somewhat defined as when fetuses are able to breath on their own outside the womb.

At conception, a separate, whole and distinct human person is brought into existence.  Shorthand that how you will, it happens well before the baby is able to breathe on its own outside the womb.

Yes, at conception, a separate, whole and distinct human DNA is created. (It can even happen in a petri dish!) However, unless it is implanted properly in a woman's womb, it will not survive. If it is implanted and the mother (another separate, whole and distinct human) dies, so will the child. It is not a viable human being. It cannot live on its own. If the fetus dies and is not removed, the decaying body can poison and kill the mother. For about nine months, it shares a life with the mother. It is not a separate life.

What is a "separate, whole and distinct human DNA?"  Is the human person somehow separable from the human body?  And what is a zygote/embryo/fetus/baby but a whole and distinct human body?

It seems your anthropology, if applied to Our Lord, could quickly slip into Nestorianism, a charge that has been leveled at you before.  I'd advise thinking this through a bit.  That's not to mention the rank utilitarianism in your last several sentences.  And that is not to mention the sophistry of considering a separate, whole and distinct human organism to be something other than a "human being."  Viability is largely a legal construct.  It simply means the separate, whole and distinct human organism (in other words, a human person) cannot live on its own outside the womb.  But the same is true for infants lacking material support, so your argument ends up folding itself into infanticide, since there is no logical reason to grant rights at "viability" if one instead wishes to grant them at "ability to work and produce," and so we can argue that prior to the age children can be totally self-sufficient, we can kill them.

It also means we can kill the handicapped, since many of them are not able to be self-sufficient and thus are not viable. I hear some people argue for abortion in the case of incest on the grounds that it leads to birth defects and I always ask why they think people with birth defects can be killed.

I only check in here occasionally (though as long-timers here will know, I've been involved on this board for over a decade and a half), and I have Brian on "ignore" so I don't read his stuff unless it is quoted like it is above because I don't take him as a serious interlocutor.

That said, in agreement with Peter, the line of argument he uses justifies lots of atrocities, and if you are consistent, you need to accept those atrocities as well.  An article came out a decade ago in the Journal of Medical Ethics seriously arguing for "after birth abortions" (infanticide) of healthy children.  The authors' logic is in agreement with Brian's logic. 

Here's the article, and I include the abstract below:

"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."

[DeHall1]

How would you summarize the vaccine hesitance among your folks? In other words, what do you see as the primary drivers?

Among my un-vaccinated (which is a low percentage), the relatively-low risk the virus presents to most who get it and the uncertainty over the brand-new mRNA vaccines are the leading reasons. (Though there is certainly a bit of "don't trust those bozos" mixed in, with various people/parties filling the "bozo" role.)

The narrative of rural, white resistance is a well-traveled trope at this point. The urban, minority resistance remains relatively unexplained in my reading. Your thoughts?

I saw an interesting video (from Russell Brand, of all people) that identified a number of reasons for urban minority vaccine resistance (the numbers are cited from data gathered primarily from the Kaiser Foundation -- I haven't been able to verify them).  Among the reasons identified for not getting vaccinated were:

1)  A larger share of Black and Hispanic adults are concerned about not being able to get the vaccine from a place they trust.

2)  Among all Hispanic adults who attempted to make an appointment to recieve a vaccine, 32% were asked to provide health insurance information.  Many Hispanic adults were asked to provide "certain types of information or documentation" (government-issued identification or SSN) when they signed up for a vaccine.

3)  21% stated they would get the vaccine if their employer gave them paid time off to get vaccinated and recover from any side effects.

4) 13% would get the vaccine if they were provided with free childcare while they get vaccinated and recover from side effects.

[Dave Benke]

How would you summarize the vaccine hesitance among your folks? In other words, what do you see as the primary drivers?

Among my un-vaccinated (which is a low percentage), the relatively-low risk the virus presents to most who get it and the uncertainty over the brand-new mRNA vaccines are the leading reasons. (Though there is certainly a bit of "don't trust those bozos" mixed in, with various people/parties filling the "bozo" role.)

The narrative of rural, white resistance is a well-traveled trope at this point. The urban, minority resistance remains relatively unexplained in my reading. Your thoughts?

I saw an interesting video (from Russell Brand, of all people) that identified a number of reasons for urban minority vaccine resistance (the numbers are cited from data gathered primarily from the Kaiser Foundation -- I haven't been able to verify them).  Among the reasons identified for not getting vaccinated were:

1)  A larger share of Black and Hispanic adults are concerned about not being able to get the vaccine from a place they trust.

2)  Among all Hispanic adults who attempted to make an appointment to recieve a vaccine, 32% were asked to provide health insurance information.  Many Hispanic adults were asked to provide "certain types of information or documentation" (government-issued identification or SSN) when they signed up for a vaccine.

3)  21% stated they would get the vaccine if their employer gave them paid time off to get vaccinated and recover from any side effects.

4) 13% would get the vaccine if they were provided with free childcare while they get vaccinated and recover from side effects.

All of these make sense to me from the local perspective here.  Lots - lots of people in the "essential worker" underpaid category have zero flexibility for off-days or childcare.  In NYC, there are pretty strong proscriptions about asking extra questions in terms of documentation.  But that's definitely not true nationwide.  And the point about trust is central. 

When we got our vaccine earlier this year, the location - in the church's neighborhood - was replete with black and hispanic health care workers to administer the shots and talk through in culturally/linguistically appropriate ways the kinds of encouragement I think are necessary.  And that helped bring others to that site.

Dave Benke