April 20, 2008 03:49 pm
—
This past Sunday, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked at the Compassion Forum in Grantham, Penn., if they believed that life begins at conception. Their responses were interesting. Obama didn’t know. And in typical Clinton-ease, Clinton stated that she believed that the potential for life begins at conception. But she continued to claim a pro-abortion position. Isn’t her position in conflict?
Ms. Clinton, you conceded that life begins at conception. Yet, you have not, and will not, support protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Well Ms. Clinton, if you believe life starts at conception, and you still support abortion rights, then your position is to support legalized murder.
Now, that terminology may not be politically correct, but it is what it is. To the life that is terminated, the result is the same no matter what you call it. You cannot say that life begins at conception and in the same breath say you support abortion. That does not make sense. You cannot ride both sides of the fence on this one.
Here is how Clinton attempted to justify her inconsistent position. “For me, it is also not only about a potential life. It is about the other lives involved. ... I have concluded, after great, you know, concern and searching my own mind and heart over many years, ... that individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our kind of open society.”
Let me see if I have this right. Clinton believes that there are several players involved in an abortion decision. There is the “potential life” that begins at conception. Then there are “other lives” that are involved, i.e. the mother and the doctor and maybe even the father. On one hand, a life that cannot defend herself. On the other hand, lives that can defend themselves.
I guess I just have a hard time understanding East Coast liberalism. They will move mountains to reach out to help the downtrodden halfway around the world. But when someone advocates for the unborn here in America, the liberals berate the person as obtuse and unenlightened. Now, I’m not talking about the radical that bombs a Planned Parenthood facility. That is just as out of bounds as legalized abortion. Murder has the same result whether in the womb or while working in an abortion clinic. Life should be protected at every age.
Now, I know there are several issues in the abortion debate that are polarizing. Health problems of the mother, rape, incest just to name a few. Those issues aside, what boggles the mind is how someone can say we have to reach out to those in need in a third world country, yet turn their back on the unborn here at home? This mindset is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest. You either want to help the helpless or you don’t. It’s that simple.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, Clinton believes that the abortion issue “must be entrusted” to individuals to avoid “an intrusion of government authority.” Now that sounds familiar. Less government intrusion into our lives. Clinton’s polls must show she now needs the conservative vote. But isn’t this the same Clinton who wants to take away choice in healthcare by socializing medicine? The same Clinton who wants to provide governmental bailouts to those who bite off more mortgage than they can chew? The same Clinton who believes that we cannot get up in the morning without the assistance of government?
If “intrusion of government” is really a Clinton concern, then she could start voting against Senate bills that daily erode our freedoms. She could vote against gun-control bills. Against bills that erode state and individual rights. She could support the free enterprise system instead of stifling it. She could work to cut taxes instead of proposing a presidency that has more spending plans than America can afford. By the way, that is a paraphrase from her own words.
What about Obama? He doesn’t know when life begins. Maybe he missed sanctity of life Sunday. I would presume the Rev. Wright addressed this topic sometime between his “damn America” sermons. But who knows. No one wants to admit to attending Wright’s church.
However, on abortion, Obama knows his position. He supports it. In fact, when asked how he would feel if one of his daughters one day made a mistake and got pregnant he responded that he would not want her to be “punished” with a baby.
I know that babies can be trying sometimes. I had two. Well, my wife had them, but I did change a diaper or two. But, the issue of abortion should not be discussed in terms of “punishment,” “inconvenience” or “quality of life.” The life conceived will certainly be punished, inconvenienced and will have no quality of life if terminated.
Come on Sen. Obama, get off the fence and take a stand. Take the correct stand. Consider the effects of abortion on the unborn. It’s a matter of life or death.
I seriously doubt that Obama will respond to this article. If he actually read it, he probably would presume that I am just another frustrated and bitter, small-town voter with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other. He’s right. But I’m not bitter because I thank God that my parents did not feel punished or inconvenienced with me. Or at least not until I turned into a teenager. Tell your children and grandchildren you love them this week. Then show them.
Scott Cain is a Cleburne
resident and attorney.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.