Abolitionists are frequently challenged not to interfere with a "woman's right to choose" abortion on the basis of a perceived lack of trust in women's ability to make the right decision. We have several responses:
1) Many women do make the right decision, and we thank God for that.
Many make the wrong one, too, and we pray we can prevent that in the future.
Why have laws against new mothers drowning their 1-month old children? Don't you trust women to make the right decision for themselves on their own?
In other words, no, we don't trust any sinful human being to make the right decision without guidance and authoritative, true laws to let us know what is right and wrong. Abortion is wrong; we should tell people it is wrong. Similarly, rape is wrong; we should tell people it is wrong.
This is why the argument must be theological. If we are adrift in this life and world without any communication from our Creator, we have nothing to go on. We make it up as we go. We have no guidance, no light.
3) Given that American women consistently poll majority pro-life, could we not ask you the same question? Maybe they know something you don't.
4) The number of women who bitterly mourn their aborted children over the course of decades is high, and testimonies thereof are easy to find. These women, with the benefit of hindsight, will tell you they made the wrong decision. Their lives and grief testify to the bad foundations of this challenge.
5) The objection is disingenuous. The pro-abort decries a perceived lack of education about abortion and contraception among Americans. S/he also fights against mandatory pre-abortion ultrasounds and discussions about what the baby actually is at that age (ie, that the baby is not merely a clump of cells).
Yet women make the wrong decision all the time. 54 million times in the USA alone, to be more nearly exact.
How can we trust women to make the right decision when those who are asking us the question routinely fight against legislation that would protect women from predatory business practices in abortion offices? That would mandate that those who stand to profit from women's crisis pregnancies educate the women fully on all the implications of the action before proceeding? Is it consent they want, or is it informed consent?
6) Apparently pro-aborts don't "trust women" either, since another common and mutually-exclusive objection is that this decision should be left between a woman and her physician.
So which is it?
7) This challenge is irrelevant to the central question in the debate. If the preborn child is a human being, then that human being must be protected, for he has the right to life. If the preborn child is not a human being, then why are we even asking the question?
Don't you trust women to make the right decision for themselves about whether to remove their wisdom teeth? Or have an appendectomy? Or a tonsillectomy?
Of course - nobody cares about that.
The thing is, deep down everyone knows that this is a preborn human child. People want to hedge their bets and try to act appropriately sober about "this difficult decision", but it's really not difficult, at all.
Either the child must have full protection of law, or it's not a child and we need have no pangs of conscience. It's really that simple.
(Please leave any comments at the Abolitionist Society blog.)