Neumayr on Hillary
In a note on Hillary’s move to the center regarding abortion I wrote:
(Note 19.) Hillary Clinton’s move to the center regarding abortion will threaten the pro-choice lobby because they will no longer be able to continue the charade that abortion is morally neutral. Abortion ideologues understand that their greatest threat comes from the received moral tradition. The only way to silence the authority of this tradition was to dismiss it altogether. Once they allow the tradition to speak to even one abortion, they open the door to having confront the tradition in its entirety — which Clinton’s move to the center represents.
George Neumayr made the same conclusion and fleshed out some details in an recent article in The American Spectator a few days later.
6 comments | 
| 
|
Jacobse | Sanctity of Life |
Sen. Clinton’s change of tone is certainly a calculated, albeit transparent attempt to position herself for the 2008 elections. Part of me hopes that the likes of Alexander Sanger will become the dominant voice articulating their side’s arguments. One would think that there are fewer people who tend to view children as “interlopers” — at least hopefully. I know that Sanger is not expressing anything that the radical pro-abortionists would disagree with, but it would finally remove the mask, and display what is actually behind the rhetoric of “choice.”
The only way for pro-choicers to move forward (from their perspective anyway) is to celebrate killing. All the icing used to cover their cruelties is melting away.
Note 2:
“the icing used to cover their cruelties is melting away”
If it continues to melt, then we as a society will eventually be left with an unambiguous choice to make: embrace a movement that openly celebrates killing children without apology, or reject it. It is striking how clear the issues become when the fuzzy rhetoric and polemics of the pro-abortion crowd collapse. I just pray that the choice will be to defend life.
Father Jacobse: I agree with your comment Senator Clinton’s statement on abortion represents a moral victory for the Pro-Life movement.
However, I also think that insinuations that Mrs. Clinton’s motives are insincere, at this early stage, are a bit mean-spirited and unhelpful. If anti-abortion advocates believe Mrs. Clinton is insincere, then they ought to call her bluff. If her comments are superficial and meant for public relations only, taking her up on her offer is the only way to find out. If her desire to reduce abortions is genuine and could yield positive results then reaching out to her can only be constructive.
I don’t recall saying Mrs. Clinton’s motives are insincere. I said they were politically pragmatic. Hopefully she had a change of heart. But even if she didn’t her move to the center, at least rhetorically, is still the right move. We can examine the sincerity issue after she casts a vote or two.
I don’t usually agree with that famous duck hunter Antonin Scalia, but he made an interesting observation yesterday in his dissenting opinion tangentially related to the abortion debate.
In yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling the majority found that the imaturity of teenagers was a mitigating factor in their guilt in homicide cases making the death penalty unconsitutionally cruel and unusual for those found guilty of committing murder while under 18 years of age.
Scalia noted that if teenagers lack the maturity to be held fully responsibile for taking human life in homicides, then why shouldn’t they also be considered to lack the maturity necessary to make decisions regarding abortion without parental consent. In other words, either teengagers are mature enough to be punished like adults for their crimes and make their own abortion decisions, or they are not.