Bill Clinton and the Abortion Controversy

At a rally in Ohio, former President Bill Clinton was confronted by a group of Pro-Life students, and, being the political master he is, soundly thwumped them.

Here's what he said: "If you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor, and every mother, as an accessory to murder, in prison - and you won't say you wanna do that 'cuz you know you wouldn't have a lick of political support."

That's why he's the grand-master of politicians! Did you notice how subtley he slipped his non-sequitur in? Did you catch it?

He just told the pro-lifers what they believe. He redirected the issue away from the morality of abortion itself to some inferred kind of vengeance against those who have been a party to abortions. He's made them into some kind of absolutist fringe, who want to punish women, and keep them down.

He even threw in "all mothers", making the pro-life position out to be an attack against all women. But, if you abort your baby, do you still count as a mother?

I understand, abortion is a very sensitive issue. Passions are inflamed on both sides. On the one hand, you've got people who care deeply about the lives of others, and don't want to see innocent children executed for no other crime than the irresponsibility of their would-be parents. Ironically, these are often the same people who believe using a condom is wrong - go figure.

On the other hand, you've got people who believe that no government policy should ever be able to so much as restrict the personal liberty of any individual - even if that liberty means allowing some women the "freedom" to commit murder as the result of a whim.

But, I'm getting into rhetoric myself. The irony on this side is that pro-choice folk are also generally members of groups that support gun control and anti-speech laws. But they don't want personal freedom limited. Again, go figure.

In all fairness, Bill does raise a good point, later on in the speech, that politicians on both sides have generally supported legislation that reduces the need for abortions, and nobody can argue that that's a bad thing.

However, to imply that to be a pro-lifer, one must want to throw "all mothers" in jail is absurd. He makes it out that anyone who says he or she is 'pro-life' is a hypocrite, for not wanting to throw "all mothers" in jail!

But, Bill, it's not about punishing women. Americans are the most forgiving people in the world. The north and south forgave each other the civil war, one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. The nation as a whole forgave England for the atrocities of our revolution. We've forgiven Germany and Japan for World War II.

We, as Americans, understand that people make mistakes. We don't want to throw everyone who voted for Bush - twice - into jail for treason. We learn from our errors, and we move on.

No real pro-life advocate wants to throw anyone in jail - they just want the deaths to stop. Whether it be through people finally taking responsibility for their own actions, or through government help programs, or whatever, it doesn't matter. They just want it to stop. That's it. It has nothing to do with "political support."

Pro-lifers realize that we're all human, we all make mistakes. People in dire straights panic, and do very stupid things. But following an act of negligence and irresponsibility with another desperate act is not really a very intelligent thing.

But, I digress. My point is that Bill set off my fallacy signal, and I felt compelled to clear up some of the resulting confusion. Just so we're all aware - we have our reasons for disagreement on this issue, but pro-lifers aren't out for vengeance. Their aim is to protect life, not punish those presently living for whatever mistakes they might have made.

In reality, a logical, thinking person knows that there has to be some kind of legal abortion in place, even if only for medical reasons.

Consider: though most any mother would happily give up her own life in order to save the life of her child, is it OUR place to make that decision for her? What if a pregnant woman is afflicted with some terrible malady, and is left with that unbearable choice: her life, or the baby's?

Most people generally assume that the child should take precedence. But, why? What makes a baby more valuable than its mother? The fact that it's younger? Come on!

At what age does a life become worth less than another? Where do you draw the line? Should a 12 year old die so that a 6 year old might live?

At what age does life stop mattering? 21? 18? 10? At what age has a person already 'spent' his or her chance to make a difference?

So, please, somebody tell me - when does a life lose its chance in the world? Where do we draw the line?

Yes, any baby might well grow up and cure some dreadful illness. But, it might also become the next Hitler. And the mother's own impact on the world cannot be understated: what if she has other children?

More to the point, she can make a difference now, today. She is already well acquainted with the ways of the world, and won't need years just to be potty-trained. Does all that experience, all that knowledge, and all that potential have no meaning at all?

When we arbitrarily state that any life somehow has less value than any other, not based on individual qualities, but generalizations about people as members of groups, then we accomplish nothing but de-value the worth of ALL life. We throw away something of value, no matter which we pick.

And who, indeed, are we to decide which is the right choice?