On the Convictions Side...

"I believe the potential for life begins at conception," Democratic presidential nominee and former first lady Hillary R. Clinton said last night. "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."

The AP story went on to say that she "added that abortion should remain legal, safe and rare."

That's an interesting point of view, Hillary. What exactly is "potential for life"? Is it something like life? Scientifically, is there a scale somewhere that gives a timeline from "Able to produce life" to "Potential to life" to "Actual Life"?

That's actually none of it. Allow me to translate: "I believe the potential for life begins at conception" = "I believe I can dupe conservatives into thinking I said 'life begins at conception' and actually keep my abortion views that are inconsistent with that sentiment at the same time. Genius!"

She meant to say, "I have actually concluded, after great, you know, counsel from my advisers an hour ago about the most politcally winsome thing to say about abortion."

That's politics. So it goes.

But, Hillary. Are you serious? "Individuals must be trusted 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's look at this from her standpoint, the "Potential for Life" view.

If this view wins the day, then one day relatively soon, trust me, we will be in a society where "Potential for Life" (and it's okay to terminate "potential" life) will include the severely mentally handicapped. The "girl who can never grow up" would be terminated. (And she's already in today's society undergone a highly debated procedure... there's a great point made in the first paragraph under "Reactions" in the link.)

What is the "Potential for Life" Hillary? How do you define it? You say it begins at conception. You say it's okay to terminate this potential. What about when someone else defines "potential" as someone who doesn't have the "potential" to live a normal life?

And abortion should remain "rare"? Has she seen the numbers, that there have been almost 50,000,000 abortions since 1973? Is Fifty-Million in 35 years "Rare"?

Statistics wasn't her strong suit at Wellesley.

The feel good thing to say is that America needs to wake up. The American people need to decide for themselves what's right and what's wrong. Americans need to set their own morals.

That's true. We do. Only we live in a society where part of the way we do that is by the election process. We elect people who set our standards for us. We call them laws. "Thou shalt not murder" is not just the sixth commandment, it's on the books in every state of the union.

To say we cannot legislate morals is to say we cannot outlaw murder or theft or a host of other things. Murder is the taking of life of another, but morally falls under the value you place on the life of another. If we cannot legislate morals, and your morals say that the life of your neighbor is worth less than the cost of a gun, then so be it, have at it. If we live in a society that cannot legislate morals, we live in a society that will annihilate itself.

We must legislate these things. We do already. We must continue.

We say we're out to ensure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We cannot ensure number two or three until we ensure number one.