I have a friend on the internet who claims to be “pro-life” in much the same way that Nancy Pelosi claims to be “Catholic.” That is, he really, really thinks abortion may be sometimes in the most extremely disturbing cases be somewhat morally questionable (think Dr. Gosnell of Philadelphia killing live babies after botched procedures), but that if we want to reduce the number of abortions, we need to educate and empower women, and provide alternatives to abortion that make them rare. By no means does he believe we should pass laws to enforce behavior that we might (again, in extreme cases) find morally objectionable. Such laws punish the poor (mostly minority, by the way) women who are caught in situations where abortion provides a solution.
So, he’s against legislating morality.
Except he supports social welfare laws. That is, he supports laws that punish rich (mostly non-minority) people by forcing them to share their wealth. Apparently educating wealthy people about the needs of the impoverished and then providing them ample opportunities to donate in a charitable manner doesn’t work on the wealthy – not like it would on poor, desperate women, anyway.
He’s also in favor of laws punishing rape and murder.
You see, educating would-be rapists and murderers about the social, economic, and moral implications of rape and murder would be wasted on those not born to “white, male privilege.” His words, not mine. Apparently women can be educated, and white men can be, but minority men can’t be expected to learn proper behavior, so we need laws to punish them for their behavior.
He’s also in favor of forcing people to espouse and participate in “gay” marriage.
Educating those who are against such behavior is wasted breath – we need laws to enforce the pro-gay agenda. Otherwise, people who disagree will go around discriminating willy-nilly against those who think or act differently. Laws to make such behavior punishable! Laws that put people in jeopardy of liberty or property because they don’t “toe the line.”
You see, he’s in favor of laws to promote HIS beliefs, but since his beliefs are the RIGHT beliefs (or is that LEFT?) then he is not inconsistent to favor those while working against legislation that “imposes” some other beliefs.
But consistency would be the hobgoblins of littler minds than his….