Hillary Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine, raised an interesting question in his debate with Gov. Mike Pence last week.
Kaine claims to be “personally pro-life.”
But he made this statement about abortion: “We can encourage people to support life, of course we can. But why doesn’t Donald Trump trust women to make this choice for themselves? That’s what we ought to be doing in public life: living our lives of faith or motivation with enthusiasm and excitement, convincing each other, dialoguing with each other about important moral issues of the day. But on fundamental issues of morality, we should let women make their own decisions.”
Does opposing abortion mean one doesn’t trust women?
Abortion takes the life of the most innocent form of human life – an unborn child.
Every civilized nation and state in the world has laws against taking the life of another person.
Would Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party suggest laws against murder should be scrapped in favor of trusting men and women to make the right decision?
Of course not – at least not at this point in their slide down the slippery slope of moral relativism. Who knows the depths of depravity to which they will ultimately descend.
Because it is hard to justify the killing of unborn human life, Kaine and Clinton and the Democrats change the subject. It becomes, “Why don’t you just trust women?”
It’s what we call in the world of rhetoric and debate a “red herring” – something intended to divert attention from the real issue at hand. It’s a smokescreen, a way to change the subject, a distraction, a diversion, a gimmick.
The trick Kaine resorted to is not without seductive appeal.
Defenders of abortion on demand without restriction, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, take a truly radical position. The unborn baby, inarguably fully human, but with no inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no defense counsel, no standing in court, according to Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, is utterly at the mercy of a woman’s choice.
They even oppose any legislation that would offer counseling to women considering their “choice” to abort. Informed-consent laws are stricken down by their judges. They oppose restrictions against late-term abortions. They oppose restrictions against abortions for the purpose of sex selection. They even favor punishing those who use their constitutionally protect First Amendment rights to offer sidewalk counseling to women headed to abortion clinics who may not fully realize the gravity of the choice they are making. They oppose regulations that would require the woman to see an ultrasound scan of her unborn baby before making her “choice.”
So the question Tim Kaine asks Mike Pence could easily be turned around.
Why don’t Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party trust women to be informed about their choice? Why would they oppose women getting both sides of the story? Why would they oppose waiting periods before the final decision is made so women would have time to consider their “choice”? Why do they feel they need to guard women from hearing other points of view? Why do they diminish the impact of the momentous decision they are making?
The onus for those who claim to be “personally pro-life” is to explain how that convenient label plays out in the real world.
Why don’t they trust women to make a truly informed choice, complete with hearing about options to abortion – like adoption?
What does it mean to be “personally pro-life” while advocating so vehemently against informed consent, against parental consent, against hearing even objective medical facts about the health risks of abortion to women?
Isn’t is actually Tim Kaine who doesn’t trust women?
Isn’t it Hillary Clinton who doesn’t trust women?
Isn’t it the Democratic Party that doesn’t trust women?
Let’s explore this logic further with some analogies.
We have laws against the selling of some drugs in this country – drugs such as crystal meth. Why? Don’t we trust women who want those drugs to make the right choice? Don’t we trust men?
No.
Those drugs are harmful and even deadly. But we don’t leave it up to people to make the right choice concerning their use. Lots of people make bad choices, and government often protects them from those choices.
Why is it so unreasonable to protect an innocent unborn human being – as well as the woman involved – from making an irreversible and always deadly choice?
Restrictions on abortion are not designed to punish women, as Kaine and Clinton and the Democrats contend. It’s about protecting innocent human life.
We even still have some laws in this country against suicide and assisted suicide. Most people understand why. We are a country that was founded on the basis of placing a high value on human life. Would we really prefer not to be that kind of country? Wouldn’t it change the character of the nation profoundly if we just left it up to individual choice as to whether any life is worth preserving, guarding and cherishing?
Hasn’t it already coarsened us to the point that we use rhetorical gymnastics to defend abortion more vigorously than we defend the sanctity of all human life?
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].
|
