COVID—The “Bug” That Divided America
By Bob Beanblossom
18 August 2021
It seems to me that our response to the COVID pandemic has some very striking similarities to both gun control and abortion issues. All three issues divide along “rights” versus responsibility.
Let me start at the bottom and work my way up.
Abortion (the intentional killing of unborn humans) is seen as fundamentally wrong by those who hold biblically responsible worldviews (and others), while “pro-choice” advocates object that any prohibition of abortions is a violation of the mother’s right to have unfettered use and choice of care for her own body.
Gun control advocates rightfully cite the Second Amendment as the foundation of their fight for law-abiding citizens to own and operate firearms responsibly. Anti-gunners want most if not all firearms banned from private ownership and, today, even prohibited from use by law enforcement officers in the normal pursuit of their jobs. Their argument is based on the tremendous loss of life every day across America from gun violence.
COVID is the same in principle. Those who oppose mandatory vaccinations and mask use base their opposition on the overstepping of governments by federal and state constitutional authority. Those promoting the use of vaccines and masks cite the ongoing, and even rising rate of infection and broadening of deaths to ever-widening groups, now including young people, in spite of attempts to stall its ever-morphing spread.
Before I get back to the COVID issue, let’s examine the other two in a bit more detail. I’m afraid I am about to offend most everybody since I will try to present an objective picture of both sides of each argument. It will necessarily be painted with broad strokes.
Abortion: I hope that it is a point of agreement that sex exists as an incentive to pro-create. Whether you find the Bible authoritative or are an evolutionist who looks only to science, even the birds and the bees support this proposition. Often ignored in this discussion is abstinence—avoiding an act that is intended to produce offspring. Today, however, included in the various and always increasing “freedoms” and personal “rights,” pleasure takes precedence over responsible behavior. Thus, unwanted and unplanned offspring are often the result. The choice seems to be twofold, but a third alternative exists: 1. Be responsible, give birth, and raise the child; 2. Have an abortion to remove all evidence (except that lingering emotional damage) of the irresponsible act of sex-as-recreation since it is not a child, but a fetus or something; or, and this is the often forgotten alternative, 3. Bring the child to birth and offer him (or her) to the adoption system.
The anti-abortionist correctly points out that science has proven (surprise!) that the fetus is wholly human from conception. Since has never found a human fetus develop into something other than a human baby, and the human baby into a human adult. Thus, it cannot be argued that to kill the infant-in-situ is not killing a human being since it is no less human in or out of the womb.
The argument today is largely based upon “rights,” with pro-abortion advocates advocating individual recreational rights, no matter what the outcome, and the anti-abortionists citing the human and Constitutional rights of the unborn child to pursue “life, liberty, and happiness.” This argument makes the Revolutionary cry of “taxation without representation” pale in terms of human rights.
It seems to me that the sensible solution is to avoid the activity that produces the unwanted result, or at least using methods that have a high likelihood of preventing conception. None, of course, totally foil the mission of the components to procreate.
Gun Control: This one is interesting since the tables are turned. The pro-gun folks argue from the Constitutional position of the Second Amendment that guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I will not argue the militia phrase since it has no bearing here. The anti-gun crowd argues the right to life of American citizens, as the federal government is mandated to protect the “general welfare” of all of its citizens. The solution is to totally prohibit private ownership of guns and remove all existing firearms from the owners. Gun advocates then point out that most gun crime is just that: crime. Criminals who, by definition, do not obey existing laws, will not relinquish their guns to anyone for any reason.
It seems to me that the anti-gun proposal to remove guns from law-abiding citizens is short-sighted and un-Constitutional. It is reasonable to expect, based upon history, that criminals are not going to give up the tools of their trade, and law-abiding citizens are not going to give up their weapons used for personal protection and recreation with no harm to others. The stand-off reminds me of the fiasco of Prohibition where the criminals profited and the citizens became criminals. But—and this is important—I do believe that responsible gun owners and the organizations are abdicating their responsibility as experts in this field to help formulate and implement reasonable laws and actions to remove as many guns as possible from criminal hands. Gun owners should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. The question needs to move from “rights” to “right,” that is, not simply the constitutional issue, but the saving of human life.
COVID: Again, this issue has become one of “rights” versus “right.” Both sides must recognize that in the last year governments (federal, state, and local) have grossly overstepped their constitutional mandates of limited government in the name of public safety. Individuals and businesses have been impacted as government acted with “informed” impunity to control nature. Again, we should recognize that these efforts have largely failed to curb the spread of the disease in all of its constantly changing forms (yes, there will be more variants).
Yesterday, some folks were picketing the local board of education of office in protest of another mandate to wear masks in school. This whole issue was summed up in one woman who carried her picket sign protesting masks in school—while wearing a mask!
Disregarding the vacillating ineptitude of federal medical “experts,” the anti- group’s problem is focused is focused upon what certainly appears to be an overstepping of constitutional power by the federal, state, and local governments. The helter-skelter applications of mandates and the uneven enforcement of unenforceable regulations have had effects that should have been anticipated (and were?). The devastating effect of the loss of income by individuals and businesses should not have been a surprise to government officials, but they seem to be. An example is the rent moratoriums that give some relief to renters but are devastating to landlords forced to suffer loss of income with no support from the governments that mandated the moratoriums. But this isn’t about the big picture, but about We the People and our response to the threat of the disease.
It Seems to Me that the dispute revolves around those who oppose big government overstepping its constitutional limits and those who assume that the government has some measure of expertise in this area, therefore accept some measure of expanded control, to stop the threat.
To solve this problem, these must be considered as two separate issues. First should be our concern for the health of our friends and family. Generally acceptable data backed up by anecdotal evidence from friends and family who have had the disease, and from those we might know in the medical profession, clearly shows that the threat is real. Ask someone who has had a serious case of COVID. Ask someone in the medical profession. People are getting sick, some are dying, many are having well documented prolonged symptoms after recovery. There is no end in sight. The obvious fact is that as COVID cases increase, so do COVID deaths. The statistical rate is low. But that is primarily of concern to those charged with tracking and mitigating the disease. Statistically, few people are killed crossing a busy interstate highway (probably because few people try), but that figure is not going to encourage me to test the odds. If one is concerned with killing innocent pre-born babies in the womb, one should be as concerned about preventing illness and death among the living.
Health is the first problem to solve. Ignoring the constantly changing COVID virus will not remove the risk and results of infection. Mask use and vaccinations are the two big issues. It has rightly been noted that most available masks are not effective in stopping the virus that is about .1 micron in diameter—a size about 1/1000 the size of a human hair. The M95 mask approaches 50% efficiency, blocking particles between .1 and .2 microns. Most others do not even come close. The missing part of the equation is that a majority of these particles are attached to liquid droplets exhaled, a potential threat that many masks properly worn intercept.
The effectiveness and safety of the innovative mRNA vaccines are far beyond my capability to discuss. Some emerging studies suggest an uncertainty of long-term effects. The studies I have read suggest this as an uncertainty, not a problem per current available data. These studies continue and the data will change. What I will suggest is that each of us refer the question to our own physicians rather than some unknown “expert” on the internet—or in the White House or state house.
Political overreach is the second issue. COVID seems to be a springboard for politicians who want to change the home of the free into the home of the ruled and regulated. Many politicians have forgotten that they are elected to serve, not rule. That said, much of the damage can be overcome by government falling back (or being driven back) into the limits established by the Constitution. From that unaccustomed perspective, our representatives should then do their best to provide valid data (on a moving target) and advise appropriate behaviors for specific districts that honest experts, who honestly admit that they do not know everything, suggest. To clarify, the uphill road to reestablishing citizen trust in government can only begin when its practitioners operate within the confines of Constitutional law and recommend rather than mandate.
CONCLUSION: American constitutional government is in deep trouble, perhaps as deep as those years leading up to the Civil War. Issues that are already hot buttons are being exploited by politicians of all labels and by the media to further their personal agendas—and line their pockets. But it is time to step back and evaluate the whole problem—including our personal response to the disease and the Constitutional issue.
Divisiveness and greed never produce healing and growth, but always lead to failure. History (for those who study the real thing) clearly shows this from the earliest of times until the present. Neither does the supposed benevolence of a socialist government that ultimately leads to a two-class system: the ruling class and the ruled. Not many Americans would like to live in North Korea, China, or other socialist/communist-controlled countries. The recent example of Ashraf Ghani, who swiftly abdicated his presidency and abandoned his people in Afghanistan as the Taliban approached his capital, is informative also. It will be hard for many Afghans to forget being left without defense as their president bailed out with a helicopter full of their cash. For those who find comfort in a “benevolent” government, look at the fiasco created by our own government in Afghanistan where, because of inept planning and implementation of an event 20 years in the making, American citizens are stranded in actively held enemy territory because, President Biden says, he is concerned about escorting them to safety through Taliban check points. Though the scenario is different, the results are the same: government failed its constituents, leaving them in life threatening situations.
The political solution can only be realized when Americans decide that America is more important than their personal opinion, and that the rights of the people were established in the balance of the over-all effect on all of the people. While I hope it is beginning to be a “given” that our politicians and news media must be held to moral and constitutional standards, this will mean nothing if each of us fail to hold ourselves to the same standards. I have no Constitutional right to try to forbid anyone from engaging in recreational sex. But I do have a right and moral mandate to protect unborn children. As a gun owner, I support efforts to maintain the integrity of the Second Amendment. I also am responsible to help stop the loss of life by gun violence. I expect—I demand—that our elected officials act within moral and Constitutional limits as they exercise the mandates of the constituents in their districts. As a husband, parent, grandparent, and great-grandparent, I strongly desire the health of my wife and offspring. It is incumbent upon me to help them work their way through the differences between outrage at illegal government control, and the reality of the devastation being produced by COVID and other threats to their health and well-being.
There is no easy answer. There never is when people are involved. But the solutions begin when we cast aside self-righteous opinion that divides and become the focal point of cooperative efforts to identify the real problems and the guts to offer creative solutions—and to admit that some proposals will simply not work—even our own.