system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Those who cite that the state should not have a say regarding what a woman does with her own body, as it pertains to abortion, are hypocritical CMV

**Obligatory Warning**: This is quite a massive generalization, but concerning my politics of gender class, many people share this same confusing, hypocritical thought. 

During class we touched upon the case for abortion and its legality in the United States. Quite the can of worms as you might imagine. 

The overarching theme was that abortion *should* be legal on the basis that the state should not have a say in what a person does with their own body.

It should be noted **I agree** with this. 

However, I have contention when I posed a theoretical question. I asked those same people who believe abortion *should* based on the aforementioned reasoning that if drugs should be legal, all of them, including every hard drug. I asked them if prostitution *should* be legal because women freely choose that occupation (in most instances). Even the legality of forcing people (in some states) to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle. 

To my surprise, I was met with much resentment. Most interesting, those who were arguing that drugs should be illegal were the **same** people who were arguing that abortion *should* be legal because the state should not have a say what they do with their body.

This is **extremely** hypocritical.

* How can one argue that the state should have no say when it comes to abortion, but the state is **right** in disallowing recreational drug use, regardless of the drug?

* I believe that theory could be considered a well-oiled machine. Like a machine, once you displace a part (or an ideal) with something else, the machine (or theory) no longer works (or is valid). For instance, if I believe in the theory of Austrian economics, but I also believe that the government should offer free health care...That does not make sense, and either do the people who share these hypocritical views on abortion.
gpt
There is a difference between saying "the state has no right to restrict X" and "the state has no right to restrict ANYTHING"; it's not hypocritical to believe one, but not the other.

For example, most defenders of the Second Amendment would concede that individual citizens do not have a right to own a nuclear warhead, *even though they have a right "to keep and bear arms".*  That's not hypocritical.

Similarly, you can believe that the state does not have a right to limit a woman's healthcare options simply because she is pregnant, but that the state *does* have a right to enact controls upon substances that it deems dangerous.

In both of these examples, "Question A" has no existential relationship to "Question B"; what you're calling hypocrisy is only an artificial construct in how you frame the question.