Bill Clinton: Prolife = A Lot of Hot Air
Prolife students at Franciscan University of Steubenville protested Bill Clinton at a speech recently. They put up a video of his heated reaction to their protest on youtube:
Clinton’s reaction is instructive. Now admittedly it is hard to get the entire context of what Clinton is arguing because the voice quality is poor and one cannot make out the question from the Steubenville student. However, from what can be heard it seems that Clinton’s strategy is a form of ad hominem. What he attempts to do is to undermine the student’s credibility. Instead of discussing the issue of protecting the life of unborn children which seems to be that of the questioner, Clinton claims that to be authentically prolife one must want to put all women and their doctors in jail who engage in abortion.
Then he opines that this student will not admit to it because it would deny him political support if he were to admit such a thing. Clinton then makes an interesting claim that there is no one involved in politics today who has done more to reduce real abortions then he did as President…but he does not name any of his policy initiatives which support this claim. Then, he appears then to dismiss the entire prolife movement as nothing but TV adds spewing hot air. Finally he gives a plug for Hillary as one who will not be pushed around when it comes to standing up for personal rights.
It is common for those arguing in favor of abortion to keep the focus of the discussion away from one of whether anyone has the right to deny a human being the rights of personhood and to keep the discussion around the “rights” of previously born women. It is interesting that in his response he suggests that abortion is a bad thing by touting his efforts to decrease abortion but he is not clear as to why this should be so. It is apparently was a good thing that he was able to reduce the number of real abortions but if it is just a medical procedure then why would it matter?
The common ad hominem tactic for the proabort crowd is that once they have moved the discussion to be centered around women’s rights, they then move to cast their opponent as an enemy of women and women’s rights. This ad hominem approach is trotted out almost without exception.
What about his attempt to say that all prolifers must want to put women who abort, and their doctors, in jail? Well, this is a false dichotomy because it already presupposes that women must be able abort their children, at least in some cases. The prolife position need not be that women and their doctors go to jail; another option is that we all come to our senses and the government work together with the prolife movement to “re-educate” the population to understand that abortion is murder because an unborn child is just that…a child.
The claim that the prolifers are not forthright about their position because this would deny them political support says a lot about Clinton himself. I believe that this is called projection. While it is clear that the prolife movement ought to be concerned about the best way to save the lives of children, to assume that they are simply interested in putting forth a politically viable message does not look at the reality of the prolife movement itself. Few prolifers are motivated by the same things that motivate all too many politicians, apparently including Clinton himself. Rather, they are authentically concerned about the lives of mothers and their unborn children.
I remember the first inauguration of Dubya; it was as if a dark pall had been lifted from over the U.S. The pall had primarily to do, in my mind, with U.S. policy as having been a world leader in promoting the culture of death world-wide. Unfortunately, of the three candidates now most likely to be the next U.S. President, two of them are sure to bring back this pall…the third is a little more promising in this regard…but not nearly as much as is needed. In any case, at least he is not likely to dismiss the prolife movement as a bunch of hot air.
.jpg)
David,
I agree with you, but I think Clinton has reached a partial truth (as much as I feel icky to say that).
If abortion is a species of murder, then shouldn’t the punishment prescribed by the law be proportionate? I would think so; in this he is sort of right. [He, of course, probably thinks that that vitiates the reasons for being pro-life. Which is hooey.]
He opines that pro-lifers aren’t calling for this harsh punishment because it would destroy their political support. I honestly don’t know if they do that; and it probably would hurt their political support. My own judgment is that they have a “chip-away-at-it” mentality (whether that is smart, I don’t know), and the issue of the punishment due for such acts hasn’t even entered the discussion. That is a more likely reason as to why it isn’t talked about.
The second part of this, and in my opinion the more important, is the claim he used, and which is frequently used today by liberals. They cite statistics that the number of abortions went down during liberal eras and conclude that it had something to do with their liberal policies (like during the Clinton Era). They attach to this the claim that out-lawing abortion would cause abortions to rise, and therefore, if you are truly against abortion, you should not out-law. . . .
There are at least two problems with this. First, the fact that the number of abortions went down at any given time does not mean the policies had anything to do with it (never mind that abortions went up immediately after being allowed by law, then went down later, rendering such correlations quite tenuous). Second, they appeal to a kind of consequentialism in their justification, which I hold to be false. Instead, as St. Thomas says: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.“
If abortion is a species of murder it should be prohibited by law, and those who procure or administer or help people obtain them should be punished accordingly. And such punishment would have to be reached by the right use of reason.
Of course, as you said, the safety of the children is a main priority, and re-education is certainly necessary; for we are living in confused times.
Comment by Peter — February 18, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
While the consequence of abortion may indeed be jail-time if it were to be outlawed, this does not mean that it is what prolifers WANT for mothers and their doctors. Much of the effort put forth by the prolife movement is to truly change the HEARTS of those involved with abortion, so they will see that it is a grave evil and not want to participate in it. Clinton makes it sound like there are only two options–legal abortion, and illegal abortion. He completely disregards the possibility that maybe, just maybe, a mother could decide to keep her child instead of deciding to have it murdered. This is the true hope of those involved in the prolife movement–we want to save babies’ lives and change people’s hearts, not throw abortion supporters in jail.
Also, I attend Franciscan and so have heard a great deal about what went on at the rally. The person who yelled to Clinton was NOT a Franciscan University student, but was a man from the local area who was protesting as well. He said something to the effect of, “What about all the unborn babies that you want to allow to be killed by abortion??” (These are not the man’s exact words, but this is the gist of what he said.)
Comment by Z — February 18, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Go here to see the exact statement of the man who argued with Clinton:
Comment by Z — February 18, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
“Then he opines that this student will not admit to it because it would deny him political support if he were to admit such a thing.”
Here’s a comment I left on the Canterbury Tales blog:
“In a 1986 letter to Arkansas Right to Life, Clinton wrote: “I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”"
Therein seems to be the problem with slick Willie and slicker Hillary; they seem to formulate their morality on the basis of the majority or, whats worse, on that which will get them the most votes in a party primary.
“So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas to them and, after he had had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.”
Comment by Dim Bulb — February 18, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Peter - you are correct in saying that as murder these should be the ramifications of the actions; however, I think that Z’s comment perhaps more accurately describes the point I was trying to make.
Z. - thanks for the link but it went to the trackback. I updated it to take it to the article.
Dim - thanks for the comment. It does very much illustrate the disturbing mindset of this former U.S. President.
Comment by David — February 19, 2008 @ 7:45 am
Democrat Pixie Dust! Before you criticize GW, consider the 2 supreme court judges he added to the court. Compare with what the demon cats will appoint when in office.
Comment by Marc — February 21, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Marc - not sure what your comment is referring to…
Comment by David — February 21, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Just a note, while most of the students protesting were Franciscan University of Steubenville students the person who made the comment to Bill Clinton was not a student. The steubenville students made a point to only be silent witnesses (with signs and such.)
Comment by Lissa — February 25, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Hi, I am the man in the news clip “youtube” confrontation with Bill Clinton,I live across the street where Clinton was here in Steubenville, I am NOT a Franciscan University Student and I came, spoke and then left and went back home.
The QUESTION I asked Bill Clinton was this: What about the 4000+ children scheduled to be killed by abortion tomorrow, what about their protection, what about their health care, they’re being left behind, their people to and we want answers.
That’s when Clinton started pointing his finger at me screaming, as I pointed my finger at the sign being held up by a student that read” ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN”
Comment by David A Vogel — February 26, 2008 @ 7:47 am