E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Tomi Lahren, abortion and constitutional conservatism

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

Note: This is a slightly modified version of what I posted on Google Plus after the story broke.

Conservative pundit Tomi Lahren stirred up a hornet's nest when she said she was "pro-choice," as conservatives rushed to pronounce a rising star in conservative media is not really a conservative. As is usually the case, this is a case of Internet outrage that would be much better if people would calm down, take a deep breath and think instead of react emotionally.

First, let's actually try to get our facts straight. Lahren did not say that all pro-life people are hypocrites. She said that, as a self-professed constitutional conservative she would be a hypocrite to want abortion to be illegal. She is wrong (more on that later) but that does not translate into believing or saying that all abortion opponents are hypocrites. It is a statement about her own beliefs and what she feels is consistent with those beliefs. It is an understandable, if wrong, position for those who advocate for small government.

I have been called Lahren's "biggest fanboi" and was told I "love" her more than my pro-life beliefs and my allies in the pro-life movement because I pointed this out. Apparently nuance is very difficult for some people. I honestly do not have a strong opinion about Lahren one way or the other, because I and have not followed much of what she says or watched more than a couple of her videos. I do think that she should be afforded the courtesy of responding to what she said, instead of hysteria - something that everyone deserves.

Lahren, of course, is wrong. Banning abortion is not a violation of individual liberty or a position inconsistent with limited government or constitutional rights. The heart of libertarianism is basically this: You can do as you please until you harm someone else. That harm to someone else is the unborn baby dismembered to death without anesthesia by the abortionist. The person harmed has her brain ripped out and her skull crushed. The person harmed is soaked in acid and burned to death.

Banning abortion, then, is no different from making rape illegal. Criminalizing abortion is no different than criminalizing the murder of a three year old child. Because man is inherently wicked and totally corrupted by sin, government exists to provide basic boundaries on behavior and protect the weak from being victimized by the strong. There is no more perfect example of that than protecting the life of a helpless unborn baby.

Finally, Lahren and her defenders would be better off defending her position on abortion than asserting she has the right to her opinion. Of course she has the right to her opinion. That does not make her opinion right, well-reasoned or well-argued. Let's have this discussion. Maybe she can be convinced that she is wrong? That cannot be accomplished by simply screeching at her?

Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name may not be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you must subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. You must put a name or pseudonym on your comments. All comments by "Anonymous" will be deleted.

  5. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

Thank you for your cooperation.