Lydia has a new abortion post up on “What’s Wrong With the World”. It’s a remarkable post, because of the sheer amount of digital ink spilled to make this astonishingly bad argument.
The thing is almost too absurd to take seriously. Lydia does great work finding and analyzing examples of the culture of death throughout the country, but ye cats, it almost defies description in its badness.
The crux of her argument is that folks who are arguing that women who make the choice to kill their baby are murderers, don’t really believe we should be treating women who abort their babies the same as everybody else.
When in fact that is the only thing we are arguing for. Take circumstances into account? Sure, as long as they’re based on objective things we know have occurred, and not the subjective state of the mother’s soul that we apparently are supposed to know well enough to know that mothers really aren’t guilty of the thing they consciously chose to do.
Her whole argument is an utter disaster from start to finish. Starting off with the Obligatory Trump Dig(TM), and the caveat that because Trump made the comment we really shouldn’t be addressing it at all anyway, because Trump or something.
Just take a look at this section:
A legal situation with harsh penalties for abortionists and zero penalties for the procuring woman would be just another such rough-cut distinction made by law, based on considerations like the difficulty of proving the woman’s state of knowledge or intent, information about the prevalence of mitigating pressure and even coercion on the woman, the widespread deception practiced upon pregnant women, the fact that the woman is not confronted with the humanity of the victim in the same way that the abortionist is, and so forth. (Abortion is unique in that the victim is physically hidden, and can remain hidden, from one of the people who is complicit in the victim’s destruction.) All of these could well make it both impractical and imprudent for the law to get involved in trying to exact legal penalties upon the woman.
It’s astonishingly bad in how it fails to address literally everything we have been saying. The argument here is literally that when a woman kills her baby we need to assume she’s not guilty of killing her baby. The sheer nerve it must have taken to have written that is stunning.
Much like Matt Walsh, when folks like Lydia write things like that it gets harder and harder for me to take them seriously – and to top it all off, she bans opposing arguments, because we’re all going to be mean to her or something. I suppose she would know that, since she reliably informs us that she can read minds.
Posts like this are making it harder and harder for me to defend folks like her and Matt Walsh.
Hat tip to Zippy, who makes a pretty good argument against it himself.
EDIT: As Jeffrey S. has pointed out, Lydia only banned comments on “What’s Wrong With the World”, but she indeed cross-posted it to Extra Thoughts, where “comments are fully moderated”.
So Lydia has NOT banned opposing arguments, she just picks and chooses which ones she gets to respond to and doesn’t allow any she doesn’t like. It’s just ALMOST like that, but it’s definitely not EXACTLY that.
To be clear: She mentioned that she posted to her private, less popular blog where she can moderate comments she doesn’t like and where the highest commented topic on the first page is that post, with 37.
On the first page of “What’s Wrong With the World” the post with the most comments is “Turning Against Trump” (natch) with 131. So she cross-posted to a less popular blog that she heavily moderates as opposed to allowing opposing arguments on her much more popular more lightly moderated blog because she thought people would be mean to her.
But she definitely does not ban ALL opposing arguments. My mistake.