cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15199291
Republican defends child marriage: I’m “pro-choice”
A New Hampshire Republican lawmaker who has been under fire for defending child marriage has lashed out at his “haters” while insisting that his stance is “pro-choice.”
State Representative Jess Edwards inspired outrage last week after describing underage teenage girls as “ripe” and “fertile” while arguing against a bill to raise the age of marriage in the Granite State from 16 to 18. The bill passed by a vote of 192-174 despite objections from Edwards and others.
…
Edwards described critics of his underage marriage stance as “an army of control freaks that want to entice a pregnant woman into an abortion rather than allow a marriage” in a Facebook post on Monday.
When this law is signed New Hampshire will have stronger child marriage law than Australia and their existing law is roughly equivalent to Australia’s. (Basically 18 with controlled exceptions down to a minimum of 16).
Your horse isn’t nearly as tall as you are pretending it is.
Reason no * I’m glad I don’t live in either the US or Australia.
The person he replied to is Australian, though, so I don’t get the downvotes. Seems like a pretty appropriate reply to me.
No, it’s simple whataboutism.
Is it?
Yes.
The opposite is true as well, but don’t let nuance stop your victory dance.
?
“Reason x as to why y” is the same amount of whataboutism as the comment you replied to. Ie. You’re being obtuse and using whataboutism to deflect legitimate criticism.