Gentleman who doesn't like government telling people what they can do likes government telling women they can't get an abortion

Originally published at: Gentleman who doesn't like government telling people what they can do likes government telling women they can't get an abortion | Boing Boing


Starting to look like the problem in the US isn’t that the broad population isn’t good at critical thinking, it’s that folks have trouble…just…you know…thinking…


Always wanted to teach rudimentary (philosophical) logic in grade school. But i was told that some parents would strenuously object to that “agnostic” curriculum (“Furthermore that would be counter-indictive of the GOP’s motto of 'keep 'em stupid! keep ‘em scared!’”)

“ey desantis! can we teach them basic logic!?” “No that would make them feel badly about their ongoing ignorance”


Well, I for one am very critical of their thinking. ;~)

Freakin’ rubes.


I remember the accusatory “gotcha question” defense the GOP tried out, laying bare their perpetual gall and ignorance. Yeah, it is a gotcha question, that’s the f’in point assholes. If you don’t want to look stupid, don’t set yourself up to get gotten.


I’m sure I’ll be shunned for saying it, but it isn’t stupid or illogical to argue that the government should pass laws to stop things we don’t like – after all, we all believe there are some things that should be disallowed.

Sure, this guy comes off as a hick and a dick, easy to mock, but if you sincerely believe that abortion is murder, you’d actually be illogical if you didn’t take the stance that it should be outlawed.

So while I strongly disagree with the premise, I can’t fault the logic that flows from it.


This sort of thing is a bit of a straw-man gotcha argument.

Disclaimer: I fully support a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body in every situation.

The proper argument against this type of baiting is to fall back on the murder comparison. It’s like saying that you’re unhappy that the government is telling you that you can’t murder your neighbour. Some things are against the law because of ethical rules and the life of the unborn overrides any other rights. This is the correct reason why this isn’t “government overreach” from the perspective of these people.

Again, I don’t subscribe to this view and feel that the rights of the woman trump the rights of anyone else in this circumstance.

1 Like

So then ask the same person, who is so ardently pro-life, about their position on capital punishment. Dollars to doughnuts they approve of capital punishment including minor offenders. Probably are big fans of Kyle Rittenhouse, too.

But seriously, it’s hypocrisy just as the author lays out.


It’s kind of an invitation to clarify where the government should interfere and where it shouldn’t, and by not addressing the (obvious to us) contradiction, the fellow being interviewed appears to not realize that there is any contradiction.


I don’t think so. Holding someone accountable for their choices and actions (up to and including requiring their death) does not conflict at all with preserving an unborn life that has not caused any harm through their choices. This seems entirely consistent and non hypocritical to me.

I’m not saying that you can’t find hypocrisy, just that your example is not a good one.

People are currently trying to get laws passed to stop there even being trans people like me just because a few people “have concerns” or just “don’t like them,” so, no, that argument can get fucked.


So killing the mother is fine? Because that’s the outcome of anti-abortion laws.

We should also word these laws to protect all clumps of living cells that are a danger to their host organisms, like prostate tumors. Otherwise, there’s nothing special about a 6 week old fetus vs a tumor. It’s nonviable and a lethal risk to it’s host.

ETA: There’s no way to defend the logic of anti-abortion laws. Sorry, it simply doesn’t work. It’s fundamentally a religious position with no basis in science or medicine.


Stupid or evil more often than not means stupid and evil.


I agree with you and I think that people who support anti-abortion laws do not value the lives of women nearly as much as they should. I just don’t think that the overly simplistic criticisms of this position as being hypocritical on the subject of gov intervention have any merit.

If you were comparing sodomy laws or mixed marriage laws then I think it would be a different situation entirely.

He doesn’t want the government in peoples’ business. Women aren’t people to guys like him.


That’s only true with a superficial analysis. Dig beyond the surface and it is absolutely contradictory. For example, anti-abortion laws are driven by religious doctrine. They are clearly an establishment of religion. The same people will say the goverment can’t tell them they can’t have guns, citing the same Constitution.


The gentleman in question believes government should interfere in the lives of other people, without any regard for their circumstances, but shouldn’t interfere in his life.

If criticizing his hypocrisy is simplistic it’s because his view of the matter is simplistic and uninformed.


What’s inconsistent is to think they should pass laws on things like abortion and stay out of our business, since that is very much a woman’s business. Sure, if you ignore the whole problem it sounds fine…few things won’t.


When anti-abortion activists say that all life is sacred, does that only apply to unborn life?


…Preventing abortion is no more holding the mother accountable than allowing it would be holding the fetus accountable. It reflects her physiology, not her choices and actions.