This subject has come about due to the sad departure of Tomi Lahren from Glenn Beck’s network, The Blaze. I am making no particular stand on the subject of her dispute against Glenn Beck and the employment contract and all of that. While I have respect for Beck and all he has done, if he and his network violated the terms of the contract (which it does appear to be so having read over the contract), then Tomi deserves her day in court and I wish her the best. I have nothing against her or Beck, and I greatly enjoyed watching Tomi’s show on The Blaze. The whole thing is just a shame that it would come to such an end. Here is one of the many articles that I came across about this, and yes, it is from the Huffington Post.
The subject I’m covering does go against Tomi’s point that she made during her interview on The View. She is quoted as saying:
“I’m pro-choice,” Lahren said at the time, “and here’s why: I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but I think that the government should decide what women should do with their bodies.”
This is now being utilized by those who promote abortion as a defense for their cause and its underlying argument is one they use often. There are many issues to be addressed in this simple statement that Tomi has applied universally to all those who stand for “limited government.” She is applying the negative term “hypocrite” to anyone (and everyone) who is for limited government (i.e. conservatives, libertarians, and the like) but is not “Pro-Choice.” So here is the syllogistic breakdown of a part of this argument:
- A person who is for “limited government” must be against the government deciding “what a woman should do with their bodies.”
- If a person says they are for one thing but defends a view that appears opposite to what they claim, they are a hypocrite.
- Therefore, A person who claims to be for limited government but defends the government deciding “what a woman should do with their bodies,” is a hypocrite.
Now there is a straw man here that needs to be identified.
- A human being, from human zygote to birth, in its mother’s womb is a part of the woman’s body.
- If someone tells a woman she can not kill the human being growing in her womb, that person is telling her what she can not do to her own body.
- Anyone attempting to tell someone else what they can or can not do with their body is wrong morally and legally.
- If the government prohibits abortions (killing the human being growing in her womb), then the government is telling women what they can not do with their bodies.
- Therefore, it is wrong to support the government prohibiting abortions.
The issue at hand, as presented by those who support abortion such as Tomi Lahren has claimed to be, is the first premise here. This is a false premise, and considering the entire argument is based on the first premise being true, this entire argument becomes invalid. A human being, scientifically, is not a part of its mother while in her womb. To bring this to simplicity, a baby is not its mother, in the womb or not. The baby is a completely separate human being, capable of continuing its growth elsewhere outside of its mother (so long as the obvious conditions are being met for that), without affecting her life. The argument from a woman’s body fails on its face both self-evidently and scientifically.
Now beyond this point, she is making another point.
- A person who supports limited government can not support the government placing limitations on the people.
- If the government passes law that prohibits abortions, it is placing limitations on the people.
- To support prohibition of abortion through government enforcement is to support the government placing limitations on the people.
- Therefore, a person who supports prohibition of abortion by the government can not be supporters of limited government.
This is an invalid argument as well. To put it simply, “limited” suggests that there is something the government is allowed to do, but what they can do is limited. A person who supports limited government supports the government being allowed to do certain things, but the person limits strictly what the government can do. Therefore, one of the possible things a person who supports limited government can permit the government to do is restrict the people from doing certain things.
The base of this is rather simple. All people who are for limited government agree that there are basically three areas of responsibility for the government.
- Protecting the people from one another through law and systems of justice.
- Protecting the people from foreign influence or action through public defense.
- Protecting the people from the government through constitutional protections and a judicial system to bring it to bear against the government.
Now, beyond these three things, the government, in the eyes of a person who supports limited government, can do no more. Now where would abortion fall? Quite obviously, to those of us who promote life, in the first responsibility of government. Protecting the people from one another through law and systems of justice. One such law that is accepted universally is the prohibition against murder. This would be the law that prohibiting abortions would fall under as killing a baby while it is in its mother’s womb is quite clearly an act of murder. So for the government to prohibit the conduct of abortion is well within the spectrum of what a supporter of limited government would support and would not be a hypocrite, but would actually be quite inline with their values and principles.
What a person who is for limited government desires to not do, is allow the government to add to the list of its three responsibilities. Now prohibiting abortion is not telling a woman what she can or can not do with her body. A law prohibiting abortion is technically not required, as abortion already falls under laws related to murder. But due to the persuasiveness of the abortion movement, society fails to view human beings in their mother’s womb as being human and worthy of the protection under the law afforded human beings outside of their mother’s womb. So adding to the already existing and agreed upon law does not add responsibilities to the government, but simply clarifies what one of the government’s responsibilities already is.
In addition to this, limited government proponents are against the expansion of government into all aspects of life. Such as having government involved in marriages, religious preferences, living conditions, occupation, pay, hobbies, how they decorate their home, etc. These require expanding the government through development of agencies beyond basic law enforcement to specialize in managing all aspects of human livelihood. These are the things that limited government proponents seek to prevent. However, not enforcing the law related to murder is not something that anyone believes should be disregarded under the guise of “limited government.”
Being Pro-Choice means that you support a person’s presumed right to decide to kill someone else for any number of particular reasons, requiring no evidence to support their claims that exists within the spectrum of reality. This is the same as telling a family whose mother was just murdered, “The murderer (your father) was in the right because he felt that your mother’s existence would inconvenience his life, causing him an undue burden if she continued to exist. I support the murderer’s right to do this, and it is constitutionally protected, so you have no right to be upset about it or tell anyone else what they can or can not do with their body (which your mother would touch each night in bed).” Doesn’t really make much sense does it? A baby is not a part of the mother’s body, it is the creation made by the mother and the father, for which both are responsible, but which exists separate and apart from both of them.
While a Pro-Life person can be for limited government and not be a hypocrite for the reasons explained already, a person who is Pro-Death (Pro-Choice) is not necessarily in the same boat. Now the government must define what life is. In defining what life is, it must also define to what life the constitutionally protected rights apply. This means the government is placed in an additional role and given new responsibility.
- Defining what is life, and what life is worthy of government protection from other life, and what life is not worthy of it.
- Protecting only the people the government defines as life from being restricted in its ability to do as it pleases with what the government defines as non-life.
It can be argued that this is not an addition, but is a replacement, and that it greatly increases the power and authority of the government as it now gets to decide for who it will uphold its other two responsibilities. That seems to be against the view of limited government proponents, who are against expanding the power and responsibilities of government. We can see how quickly these additions would go out of control. It becomes difficult to argue that both the first responsibility of the government described previously and these two new additions can coexist. What do the laws look like in such an environment, and what does the system of justice look like when one grouping of humanity is not viewed as worthy life while some other selected grouping of humanity is? How can a person say the government can only do one while saying it can also do the other that is in contradiction to it? Sounds a little hypocritical to me…