Who Do You Trust?

Recently, the Ohio legislature was debating a piece of abortion legislation when State Representative, Connie Pillich became unhinged and began shrieking that attempts to restrict abortion indicate that we don't trust women.

First off, this seems to be an odd assertion given that most of the people in the pro-life movement are women and, yes, that includes most of its leaders. Apparently, Ms. Pillich is hoping that the public is simple-minded enough to just accept at face value her charge that a predominately female entity does not trust women and seeks to squash them underfoot.

Beyond that, however, saying we shouldn't have laws against abortion and should, instead, trust women to make their own decisions, is no different than saying we shouldn't have laws against rape because men should be trusted to make their own decisions. It's also no different than opposing laws against armed robbery on the basis that we should just trust each person to make his or her own decisions about whether stealing is right or wrong. In fact, this philosophy can be just as easily applied to any subject.

As for this particular issue, the abortion lobby's basic argument is that since women are the ones who get pregnant, they are the only ones qualified to make the decisions that are right for them. Using that concept, imagine the following hypothetical, but quite realistic, scenario. A pregnant woman has an abortion scheduled for tomorrow, but goes into premature labor today and gives birth. Also imagine that the baby survives. (And yes, abortions are done on babies who have reached the point of viability. For proof, all you have to do is check out abortion clinic advertising in the Yellow Pages.)

The question is: under these circumstances, should it be legal for her to kill that baby? Remember, she already decided that she doesn't want it and arrangements were in place to have it killed the next day anyway. So why should she lose her "right to choose" because of circumstances that were beyond her control? Is she not still the one best qualified to make the decisions that are right for her? Otherwise, what we're saying is that we trust women to make good decisions while they're pregnant, but at the moment they're no longer pregnant we no longer trust them.

It should also be pointed out that, from the baby's perspective, there is no distinction between being butchered inside the womb or outside. Naturally, the mental images created by the latter might cause the rest of us to feel a little queasy, but we could comfort ourselves by just looking the other way and referring to it by some high-sounding sanitized term like "reproductive choice ex-utero." Since Roe vs. Wade, our society has developed a real talent for inventing that sort of self-deluding rhetoric.

So again, do we still trust this woman to make the right decision or not?

Look, the cold hard reality is that every statute enacted denies someone the legal ability to make certain decisions. In fact, that is what they are intended to do. The law is a response to the realization that all human beings--men and women--are capable of making decisions that are dangerous, immoral, destructive, etcetera. And the law exists to keep those decisions from being inflicted upon other innocent human beings.

Now, to Ms. Pillich and her fellow travelers who are out there chanting this mindless "we trust women" mantra, I have a challenge for you. If you do indeed trust women, prove it. Start promoting an overhaul of the American legal system so that it exempts women from all legislation. By doing this, you would be making sure that women have the legal right to make their own decisions about everything – driving drunk, embezzling money from their employers, writing bad checks, using cocaine or selling their bodies in prostitution. Female business owners would even be allowed to decide for themselves whether to discriminate against minorities.

The list goes on and on, but the common element is that every law enforceable against women is, by definition, a statement that we don't trust them. Clearly, that makes such laws irreconcilable with your philosophy and demands that they be eliminated. If you are "pro-choice," you simply cannot tolerate the fact that women are being denied these choices. Either you trust women or you don't.

Of course, we both know that you are not going to accept my challenge and we both know why. You know that doing so would expose your "trust women" rhetoric as pure undiluted nonsense. To put it succinctly, this line of argument is nothing more than a diversionary scam you people dreamed up to keep from having to defend a barbaric practice that you know cannot be defended.

As for my fellow pro-lifers, it is important to understand that when your enemies are reduced to making idiotic and irrational arguments like this, what they are telling you is that you are winning and they are out of ideas. Today, death merchants like Connie Pillich are seeing a tidal wave of pro-life sentiment rolling across America and they know there is nothing they can do to hold it back. So be encouraged, ratchet up the pressure, and savor the beautiful sounds of pro-aborts squealing like pigs stuck under a fence.

Comments (Comment Moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until approved.)

This is an excellent article with sound reasoning applied in every statement. Too bad we have such unreasonable legislators in office whose primary goals in life seem to be to stay in office. If that requires mindless acquiescence to cold hearted, but well funded principles, then "so be it" say they. If only Ms. Pillich understood that trust and love are inseparable, and when it comes to the life of a child we cannot trust those who have no love except for love of self. It is selfishness and greed that fuels the industry of abortion, not choice. It is not trust that is lacking, it is love. And how many believe that politicians like Ms. Pillich can understand what trust really entails. Certainly we cannot entrust them with something as precious as a life if they don't even have love in their hearts.
# Posted By Craig | 10/3/11 6:17 PM
The abortion rights position is a house of cards built on lie after lie. It denies the humanity of the unborn and the nature of woman which is to bring forth and nurture new life. At its core is the denial in the existence of God in whose image and likeness we are made. The early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others were against abortion and they worked to eliminate the root causes of it.

Abortion rights advocates deny men their biological claim to fatherhood and those who advocate for reproductive freedom and reproductive rights are really advocating for sexual license with legal abortion there as a backup when birth control fails. Though they claim abortion is about women's rights, or a woman's right to privacy or a matter of trusting women, abortion is about extinguishing the life of an unwanted child. And if these folks are so concerned about women's rights, what about the rights of the female children who are killed through abortion?
# Posted By Mary | 10/5/11 5:29 PM
If this Congresswoman really trusts women to make their own decisions, then why is abortion the only surgical procedure that doesn't require informed consent and why don't pro-aborts trust women to make the abortion decision after they see the ultrasound? Answer me that Ms. Pillich. Interesting last name for her don't you think?
# Posted By PATRICIA M | 10/10/11 9:56 PM
"Abortion: Women’s Rights and Wrongs" ?[The Remnant, January 20, 1992]

If women are an oppressed group, they are the only such group to require surgery in order to be equal.
# Posted By WatcherOnTheWall | 3/18/13 8:07 AM

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics