False equivilance & false analogy?

This is an tweet I've seen online.

"If a 16-year old wanted to adopt a child, the government wouldn't allow it. She isn't done with her education, she can't financially support herself, and she isn't a legal adult. But if she gets pregnant, the government can ban her from getting an abortion

How is this logical"

"If a 16-year old wanted to adopt a child, the government wouldn't allow it. She isn't done with her education, she can't financially support herself, and she isn't a legal adult.

The reasoning being, obviously, that a 16-year-old is unlikely to be able to care for a child.

But if she gets pregnant, the government can ban her from getting an abortion

The reasoning being that this would be considered 'murder'. Stopping an adoption doesn't involve a child's life being taken. Not stopping an abortion  would  involve a life being taken.

It's actually consistent from an American conservative point of view. A person who is too young to take care of a child shouldn't have one in the first place. So they should not even come close to needing an abortion, as they shouldn't be doing anything that is likely to cause them to conceive. But once the mistake is made, and a child is conceived, it would be unjust to terminate that pregnancy (and kill the child) to make up for the mother's error.

(Whether or not you agree is another story, of course).

The two statements aren't equivalent, in that sense.

The statements above make some assumptions that may or may not be correct, depending on which "government" is involved.  

• Is it in fact true that a 16-year old female (who is legally married to a 22 year old male) wouldn't be allowed to adopt a child?
• Similarly, is it true that all women (of any age) are banned from abortions, regardless of the circumstances?  

Presumably the poster of the tweet is considering a real (or possibly imagined) government that has or would impose such restrictions, and I suspect there may be some.  However, the argument would be much more powerful and much easier to assess if the underlying facts and assumptions were made clear.

The discussion seems to relate to two different situations:

• in situation Ad (for adoption), we have a girl without a child wishes a child to raise – the state opposes an adoption.
• in situation Ab (for abortion), we have a girl who presumably doesn't wish a child to raise but has the real potential of soon having one – the state opposes an abortion.

As presented, the questions presents the two situations as essentially similar and asks if it would be logical for a state to take one position in one case and the other position in the other case.  A good case can certainly be made for false equivalence because of the different goals and rationales for the government's refusal to allow the action – in one case a decision about providing a desirable environment for a child, in the other case a decision about whether abortion is morally, ethically, and legally acceptable.  Regardless of one's view on the ability of a 16-year old to care for a child and on abortion, the two decisions seem to be based on different facts, assumptions, and expectations.

One could also argue that the posting is an appeal to emotion .  I find it curious that the object of the discussion is a 16-year old girl because I don't see the age of the person involved as having an impact on the logic of the situation. 

There's also a bit of cherry picking going on here.  In the adoption case, we are presented with some presumed reasons for the state's refusal to agree with the requested adoption (it would be interesting to see if these reasons are the actual reasons for which the state in question disapproves of 16-year olds adopting); in the abortion case, no rationale for the state's position is presented ... perhaps an attempt to make it seem that the reasons are the same as presented against adoption.

I suspect a government's anti-adoption rationale to be similar to what is presented by the tweeter – ultimately, the continued welfare of the child that was to be adopted.  (I suspect that's the mandate of the government agency that decides on adoptions).  I suspect the government's anti-abortion rationale would relate more to the debate over whether abortion is morally, ethically, and legally acceptable.

Viewed in this light, we have a government that is making two different decisions on two different matters for two different reasons – the only similarity seems to be that each situation involves a decision about whether someone does or does not gain a child for whom to care.

If we revised the tweet to something like "The government doesn't allow a 16-year old (or anyone, for that matter) to kidnap a new-born infant from a hospital to raise the child as her own.  That same government doesn't allow a pregnant 16-year old to have an abortion.", I suspect that the implication of an inconsistent or illogical approach would disappear.

Does the legislation say that the 16-year old will give birth to the child and then the child will be taken from her? Cause if it doesn't then it's clearly irrational. They deem a 16-year old incapable of raising a child AND also prevent an incapable 16-year old from not having a child. So, which is it? Regardless of the case, a 16-year old is either capable or incapable of raising a child.  I don't see any fallacy in the original argument. I see irrationality though in the legislation.