Confounding Contradictions

by Donna Skelton

I am truly baffled by inherent contradictions in a particular set of beliefs.

The first contradiction pertains to sovereignty over one’s own body. It claims “My body, my choice” in objection to COVID vaccinations while, at the same time, denying a woman’s right to choose how to deal with her own pregnancy. In this mindset, the government does NOT have the right to mandate vaccinations or other safety precautions against a deadly virus that has already killed 890,429 Americans and has caused as many as 524,817 new infections daily in the United States.

On the other hand, the government does have the right to prohibit an abortion that ends a pregnancy. This belief set grants an anti-vax person the right to choose what happens to his or her body, but denies a pregnant woman the right to decide what happens to hers. Furthermore, it denies bodily protection to persons who are exposed to the COVID virus through unvaccinated carriers. How does one reconcile this bewildering combination of beliefs?

The second contradiction pertains to the meaning of “pro-life.” This belief set advocates the “right to life” of an embryo from the moment of conception or of a fetus prior to viability (before it can survive outside the uterus); however, it objects to the expanded child tax credit (introduced in the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) which enhances the quality of life for existing children.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports, “Without the enhanced credit, nearly 10 million children are at risk of falling back below the poverty line or slipping even deeper into poverty.” A study from the Urban Institute shows that retaining the tax credit would reduce child poverty by about 40%.

Nevertheless, some “pro-lifers” object to continuing this tax credit in the “Build Back Better” plan.

This set of beliefs shows concern for the potential child (still in the womb) but not for children who actually exist in the world. Whether the living are fed and housed, educated and provided opportunities to thrive are not valid concerns. In summary, the government should protect the unborn, but it should NOT protect living persons from the ravages of childhood poverty or from a lethal virus. How does this make sense to any rational person?

If you ascribe to this combination of beliefs, please explain how you reconcile these contradictions.