Search This Blog

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Hillary's "Horton Hears a Who" moment

   This weekend Hillary Clinton was on "Meet the Press" and was asked about the constitutional rights of the unborn.   Here was her response:
Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support. It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions.
    Here we have a very interesting comment in which she agrees with the Pro-Life side that the fetus (as so many Pro-Choice/Abortion advocates like to call it) is a "person".   This wording may seem unimportant but it couldn't be more starker.  This may be the first time Hillary may have used those exact words in her entire life.   I don't know if its because she's getting older and wiser or just older and starting to slip.   Whatever the reason it's important to note.

    Next she says that "the unborn person" has no constitutional rights.    Now, let me ask you this.  When have we heard these arguments before?   Well, of course, the Republicans fight with the Democrats of 1860 over the rights of slaves is one place.   The argument over whether or not these racially different people were even human at all and whether they deserved the same rights as citizens.   The arguments are the same, its just the adjectives are changed from "slave" to "unborn" and the year from 1860 to 2016.

    Often the argument has been about the viability of the child outside the womb as to whether or not it should be granted "human status".   But that is merely a result of science and resources.   Even a fully developed baby of 9 months or even a year-old is not technically viable outside the womb to care for itself either.  Does that mean its death is not covered by the Constitution either?   What about a child living in an iron-lung machine.   Technically its life is completely dependent on a machine and people willing and able to pay for the care and energy to run that machine.   Does his life become less Constitutionally Viable?  Do they become UN-human?

     The real truth is that for the Democrats it's not about Constitutional Rights at all.  They haven't cared about the Constitution for over 50 years so why should they start now.   The real issue is that the "thing in the womb" doesn't vote (yet) and is a mistake that someone wants to erase like a wrong answer on a test.   Quietly.  Anonymously.   Without regret.   But as I have written before, a conscience is a terrible thing to waste and it has a tendency to creep back up on you later in life.   Many women have come out about how they have battled for years after their abortion with depression, drug abuse and failed relationships from their choice to abort.     These are facts that often the left doesn't want to face.   Like the tiny non-humans murdered in this procedure they are inconsequential in the grand scheme of votes and money.

    But let's not lay all the blame at the feet of people like Hillary either.    We as a society have been complacent as well.   For too many people the issue of abortion is tragically viewed as a form of welfare reduction.   There are those on the right who also silently view abortion as a way to reduce federal welfare spending.   They view these lives only as a drag on society and an added burden on the taxpaying citizen.   To them, better 6 million babies are aborted than to add possibly 6 million babies each year to the welfare roles.  Too often though this stems from such an apathetic view of humanity and its ability to adapt and change.   Ask yourself this simple question: if abortion was made illegal, would not people who are engaging in non-procreation sexual activities (i.e. sex outside of marriage) find alternative ways to have their cake and eat it too?   Would they not use one or two of the myriad of ways to prevent conception?   Of course they would.  

    The problem is that no one wants the responsibility.   Not the mother, who thought sex would solidify a relationship as good as a wedding only to find out it doesn't.   Not the father/sperm-donor who only wanted a few minutes of fun and wasn't the least interested in raising a child let alone staying with the mother any longer than past breakfast.   Not the feminist who would rather teach that women should use sex like men use sex in order to achieve some level of male equality.     Not the politician, like Hillary, who only wants votes and sees that it's easier to pander to promising a painless world without repercussions for ones behaviors and actions than to tell the truth to the people they represent.  

    But keep on talking Hillary.   I hope you listen to one of your interviews and hear how ridiculous your reasoning really sounds.   I think there is still hope for you.