Is It Me

…Or are the liberal reactions to the Hobby Lobby ruling especially stupid this time? I mean, I know, I know. The logic behind it all has always been pretty dumb, right? But seriously, I feel as if they’ve become totally unhinged.

Maybe it’s because, to me, this was always such a ludicrously obvious decision? But…


Really, look at these arguments I’ve culled from cultural osmosis and random places around the net and tell me that they’re not all mind-numbingly stupid:

  • General framing of the whole thing as a female “rights” issue…since access to no-risk sex is a right?
  • General framing of the whole thing as a women’s issue anyway, since apparently men should have no say in the parenthood of their child or something (hey, I’m just connecting the dots)?
  • This unbelievably dumb graphic. You need to zoom in to get a good look, but it’s supposedly a “guide to American personhood” showing a corporation as a person and an unborn baby as a person but a woman as a “meh”? No, I don’t know how it makes any sense or remotely reflects reality in any way, shape, or form either.
  • That apparently this court ruling also justifies corporations having rules against eating shellfish, because Leviticus? Do I even need to mention why this is dumb? It’s an old liberal anti-Christian card that was always stupid, and it makes even less sense in this context.
  • Hey, the judges are male! There’s no actual argument here except “Male+issue that has something to do with women=WRONG”, at least when it doesn’t completely favor the woman’s side of the issue.

And let’s not forget that if we take the left’s logic to its ultimate conclusion then any health care plans that don’t provide contraception are biased against women because they make no special provisions for them…which means all health care before Obamacare. Typical leftist logic: We were always at war with Eastasia.

And liberals also seem to be really, really, angry bout the ruling. I find this interesting. When I think of Roe v. Wade I’ll admit that, yeah, there’s anger there, but the overwhelming feeling is one of sorrow. Liberals are acting as if this is heralding the coming of a theocracy. No, really.

With Roe v. Wade, there was no need to exaggerate: It made virtually unlimited slaughter of children on demand a female right. It more or less WAS the worst case scenario for pro-lifers. And apparently the Hobby Lobby thing is somewhere near that level? Or something?

And this all reminds me of something else I’ve been chewing on: To the objective observer is it really possible to admit that Roe v. Wade was in any way a good thing? Even for the most hard-core abortion proponents the number of abortions that have resulted is absolutely, horrifically staggering. “Safe, legal, and rare” is laughable, especially when efforts by pro-lifers to make it safe and rare are opposed. Even if you’re pro-choice it’s pretty difficult to argue that Roe v. Wade had a desired result, right? And let’s be honest, if you think this is somehow the fault of radical pro-lifers you’re pretty much delusional.

It’s not just me who thinks like this, is it?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Is It Me

  1. Crude says:

    No, it’s not just you. I think the difference is, I think most progressives realize that their arguments are inane here – and that they really don’t have an ‘argument’ to speak of. I’ve said for a while, it’s pretty recently that progressives realized that arguments were irrelevant anyway. In a contest of arguments, logic and reason, they’d lose. But they want to win, so they look for alternative means to advance their causes. They’ve found them.

    • Pat D. says:

      Progressives remind me a lot of a high school clique, lots of social signalling and pressure without much explanation of why they do what they do.

  2. I’ve noticed that aside from here(*) none of the liberal reaction seems at all concerned with:

    1) was it a good ruling from a legal standpoint? Given our current legal framework of corporate personhood and legal protections for religious exercise, was the ruling legally sound?

    2) is it even the government’s place to mandate this sort of thing? Here’s a clue: if implementation is this hairy, maybe we ought to rethink what we legitimately expect out of government regulation.

    3) even if everyone were to agree that the result isn’t “fair,” what does that even mean? Realistically, how much do we think we can burden everyone to make things more “fair”?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s