Just for the “halibut,” I submitted my post (slightly edited) on “The Virus and Abortion” to the reader’s viewpoint section of our local newspaper.
I knew without a doubt I would receive kickback.
And I did.
Most were simply anti-abortion rights defenders, but the most recent contributor claimed my viewpoint suffered from “logical inconsistency” … ??
See what you think.
The [local newspaper] published a letter on Feb. 15 (“Is this correlation as tragically real as it feels?”). *Note: this is the title provided by the newspaper* The letter suggested that people who are COVID anti-vaxx and anti-abortion are suffering from a logical inconsistency.
There is no logical inconsistency between those views whatsoever.
Both views hold to the principle that it is morally wrong to force a medical procedure on an unconsenting person. Where is the inconsistency? Anti-vaxxers insist that it is wrong to force a vaccine on an unconsenting person. The two positions are perfectly consistent. Both say that nobody has a lawful right to compel another person to undergo an invasive medical procedure involuntarily.
Of course, the pro-life and “pro-choice” movements disagree whether a fetus is a “person”. But nobody disagrees that a fetus never consents to the procedure. The fetus has no-choice.
In any case, to suggest that the pro-life and anti-vaxx positions are somehow inconsistent with each other is a falsehood and a straw man intended to distract from the real issues.
From my perspective, the writer digressed from the point of my letter (a woman’s right vs. an anti-vaxxer’s right) to interject his point: the “choice” (right) of the unborn. (“Pro-lifers insist that it is wrong to force a life-terminating abortion on an unconsenting (unborn) person.”)
And he accuses me of “logical inconsistency”??!!? Am I missing something?
Nan's Notebook 
If you are missing something, so am I. Does a fetus ever have a choice, about anything? Anyway, for them to say…to accuse,
“…falsehood and a straw man intended to distract from the real issues.” is obnoxious at least. Where is the lie? Are vaccinations and abortions not “real issues.” I would penalize them 15 yards for baboonery. But you expected some of that, right?
Local fallacy I get. Inconsistency implies changes. It is there, but not by you. That is by those that say not my body (anti-vax) but yes your body (pro-birth). 🙂 I prefer charging them with hypocrisy.
LikeLiked by 5 people
LOL….I should never go back and read. “Logical fallacy….” 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Weird train of thought.
“Of course, the pro-life and “pro-choice” movements disagree whether a fetus is a “person”. But nobody disagrees that a fetus never consents to the procedure. The fetus has no-choice.
To contradict yourself so enormously from one sentence to the next demonstrates that this person’s thinking is not straight.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Strictly speaking, “logical inconsistency” only makes sense in a purely logical argument. As these questions involve more than logic, there is no logical inconstency.
Like you, I see anti-vax and anti-abortion as inconsistent. But the inconsistency is not in the logic. People disagree over these because there are no purely objective standards by which they can be judged.
LikeLiked by 4 people
My wisdom teeth didn’t consent to be extracted either. So what? Concepts like consent and choice are only meaningful when a conscious mind is present which can make decisions. A fetus or embryo does not have a conscious mind.
LikeLiked by 4 people
They couldn’t dazzle you with their brilliance, so they’ve baffled you with their bullshit.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Their BEST line of defense!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is their gameplan, an outgrowth of the tea-baggers and town-halls ten years ago, overwhelm you with bullshit to put you on the defense (because they know they can’t dazzle you with their brilliance). Once you’re on the defense they have for their purposes won. They’ve shut you down, bowled you over and you’ve walked away in disgust: there is no protest. It doesn’t matter that whatever it is they have “won” is a chimera, it’s the instant gratification that trips the dopamine, what gives them a trickle down their leg.
It’s a lot like rape …
LikeLiked by 1 person
The inconsistency, to me, is that prolifers believe the instant a sperm impregnates an ova, it becomes a person. However, as soon as the person is born, it is not worth their time or attention. They say they care for nine months, then the next hundred years can go to hell.
Anti- vaxxers want to “protect their own bodies,” without caring about anyone else. But they want to own women’s bodies, because the women cannot be trusted to bring a fetus to term. Women are not allowed to “protect their own bodies.” If that is not inconsistent, I dont know what is!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Pro-lifers are only ‘pro’ life when it suits their purposes, ie to dominate over women, to take away a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her own body. Once the baby is born, as rawgod aptly states, those pro-lifers don’t give a damn whether it has a home to live in or food to eat. Pro-Lifers are typically also ‘Pro’ the death penalty … just how is that consistent with “pro-life”??? It’s all about bigotry/misogyny, not about life at all.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Not only that Jill, I have come across Christians who claim they would sacrifice their children before denouncing their God. I expect most of the self righteous Christians would claim they would do this so we are obviously dealing with the mentally unstable in many cases.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You wrote a good piece, Nan. Typically, it was replied to with word salad and gibberish. Typical.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The question of abortion comes down to the more basic question, “When does the fetus become a person?” I choose to draw that line at the point that the fetus can live and develop without life support from the woman ,,, who is already a person. Medical science keeps pushing that closer and closer to conception. I suspect that abortion as we know it today will eventually change into transferring the fetus from the woman to external life support. Then, the mother and the fetus can go their separate ways. (Of course, the fetus will need the care that every child deserves, Surely, the “pro-life” people will be anxious to take on the responsibility.)
From a religious perspective, I can only speak of my Lutheran upbringing and the related denominations of Christianity that practice infant baptism. I was taught that its purpose was to “cleanse the infant of ‘original sin’. Some who share this belief also speak of abortion of killing an “innocent” child. That creates the paradox of “innocent fetus” becoming an “infant stained by original sin”. At what point in the process does the poor fetus become “stained with the sin of Adam”?
In a similar vein, some who are “Pro-Life” are also “Pro-Capital Punishment”. Clearly, those people believe there is some sort of age limit in their perception of “murder”.
Saying that anti-vax and pro-life are not logically inconsistent. A person who is not vaccinated is forcing the immune compromised and children under 5 to be exposed to a deadly virus. The Pro-Life people are forcing a woman to risk her life … and the life of a potential child … not only to death, but to possible conditions that will hamper them for decades to come. You can’t be “pro-life” while not giving a damn about those who are already living … or, by being a hypocrite.
The anti-vaccine people whose only reason is “You can’t tell me what to do” are wrong. If you live in a society, you morality and decency requires consideration of others. “Your freedom to throw your fist ends where another’s nose starts.” “Freedom of speech doesn’t allow one to scream ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
A logical inconsistency is when you have people who claim to oppose the death penalty and yet support abortion or the other way around. They are 2 separate things, however, the hypocrisy/double-standard is so damn obvious that any sane and rational thinking person would see it for what it is.
LikeLike