RH Reality Check implies I’m a sexist, fails miserably

For every pro-life argument, a pro-choicer stands ready to mock it without trying to understand it. In response to my Nov. 12 post about why the law takes certain “rights to choose” out of individuals’ hands, our old friend Robin Marty writes that I oppose abortion because I think “women can’t be trusted” and “believe women are incapable of making ‘the right’ decision.”

To be fair, she quotes enough of my post to get my basic point across – but apparently not enough for her to digest it. That’s what makes her response so oddly lacking – she doesn’t try to explain why I’m wrong; she just lets her paraphrases about me distrusting women hang there, as if expecting my knuckle-dragging wrongness to rise self-evident from the page.

This is because abortionism, like all subspecies of liberalism, doesn’t really believe in using reason to discern truth or derive positions; adherents to this ideology decide what they want first, then manipulate whatever emotions they can to help them get it. You don’t trust women is merely one of an arsenal of slogans and buzzwords meant to elicit a Pavlovian response in one’s followers – in this case, they are meant to instinctively recoil in disgust at my alleged disdain for the fairer sex.

Unfortunately for Marty, ten seconds’ worth of non-brainwashed thought about my words – or, in this case, just reading them – would have sufficed to see my real argument: I think “women can’t be trusted” with the power to abort only because I don’t think anyone can be trusted with the power to unilaterally decide whether someone else dies, male or female. Indeed, if the several dozen words I spent explaining my position weren’t enough to convey that to Marty, my use of words like “men,” “people,” “our,” “human,” and “we” should have taken her the rest of the way.

But because genuinely understanding and accurately depicting one’s opponents fall so low on pro-aborts’ priority list, Marty instead settles for the implied sexism cliché, and she makes almost no effort to address the various aspects of my argument – not human nature, not the rights of the unborn (or, indeed, what the unborn even really are), and not the hypocrisy of liberals. The closest she comes to an actual response is this:

Of course, we do have an independent, impartial authority—the courts. At least, we do so far. And that independent, impartial authority ruled that a woman’s right to bodily autonomy supersedes a fertilized egg’s right to be born if the woman doesn’t wish to carry it to term.

Sadly, instead of correcting my fallacies, Marty has introduced a whopper of her own. The true “independent, impartial authority” is the Constitution and the principles it enshrines; the courts settle these questions only to the extent that their rulings faithfully reflect that Constitution and uphold those principles. Roe v. Wade fails that test spectacularly. (And if you don’t believe me, Robin, don’t take Live Action’s word for it – take your own side’s legal experts.)

Robin Marty set out to undermine my argument, but by providing such a great example of the lengths to which abortion apologists will stretch language and reason to keep unborn babies killable, it seems to me she’s only strengthened it.

  • Danny

    are you for real? its people like you who are responsible for the death of Savita today, shame on you. I hope you burn in hell.

    • Julia

      This is a very sad situation, but it is not clear yet whether killing her dying child would have saved her life, anyway. “The hospital declined to say whether doctors believed Halappanavar’s blood poisoning could have been reversed had she received an abortion rather than waiting for the fetus to die on its own” (from the huff post)

      A case like this is a very rare occurence. Most pro-life people are not against, for instance, the removal of a tube in an ectopic pregnancy, because the purpose is not to kill the child, but to save the life of the mother. Also, they are not against life -saving treatment for pregnant mothers (such as kimo), though they may harm or kill the child. Again, this is because the intent is not to harm the child, but to save the mother.
      The life of the mother and the child are equally valuable, and pro-life people do want mothers to die anymore than they want the deaths of millions of children who die from abortion each year.

      Also, there have be about 15 instances in the 24 months of very serious medical emergencies (some resuling in death) from abortions just her in the U.S. Where’s the outrage for someone like Tonya Reeves or the woman in this story http://afterabortion.org/1999/two-senseless-deaths-the-long-road-to-recovery/ ?

      If you can blame this death on the pro-life side, those deaths can just as easily be blamed on your side (as well as the 43 million children who die from abortion every year).

      “Father, forgive them, for the know not what they do.”

  • Ok, so after that long, yet articulate, defense, the substance of your argument is exactly the same: you don’t trust women to make their own decisions regarding their health and reproduction and would rather it was made by a male dominated cabal of right wing legislators and Christian fundamentalists.

    And let us thank the compassion of the “pro-life” movement for sticking with their irrational dogma and instead of saving a woman’s life.


    • I’m getting really tired of endlessly pointing out the exact same lies you guys repeat, without any of you having the basic honesty to stop lying.

      • Damien Johnson

        Exactly. People act like it’s only the men in government “making decisions for women’s bodies.” So what happens when women are making those decisions? “It’s only christian women making decisions on women’s bodies.” Then what happens when non-christian women are up there and they ALSO are passing anti-abortion legislation? What defense is left?

    • Mlane

      The images of small otherwise healthy infants aborted live into toilets to die – an undisputed side effect of abortion on demand undermines your point. If the Constitution truly provides no protection for these children, its protections do not extend to you or me.

  • Frank

    Newsflash: You’re a sexist.