In early 2023, mass-child-murderer Lindsay Clancy asked her husband to run an errand before methodically spending several minutes each to strangle her five-year-old, three-year-old, and eight-month-old children to death with exercise bands. Neither she nor her defense team denies that she committed these murders.
Read more Democrat loses support for her smiling pose in Nazi death camp
There’s no reason to expatiate upon the details of the crime beyond this, as most people have surely heard many of them by now. What seems most important is that, in the wake of this horrific and evil crime, her trial has become a cause célèbre among legions of hardcore feminists who have rallied in her defense.
While most of us might have been initially aghast at seeing all of the details of the Clancy murders, it didn’t take long to conclude that this is just the logical end of pro-abortion culture. It isn’t some incredible leap, after all, from believing that it’s entirely legal and for a fully developed child in the womb to be legally torn apart by a doctor’s forceps to believing that it’s entirely justifiable for a mother to murder her children outside the womb.
But there are lots of people who oppose late-term abortion, you might say, while still agreeing with the right for a mother and a doctor to kill a child in the womb in the first trimester of pregnancy. And polling data fleshes that out, given that American public opinion seems to support first-trimester abortions at a roughly 60% rate.
But Americans also oppose late-term abortion at a 70% rate.
Therefore, the majority of people in America today might not agree that strangling an 8-month-old baby or a 3-year-old child with exercise bands is justifiable.
While this is undeniably true, what is also true is that the moral calculation behind the act of strangling one’s infant to death is morally the same as having a doctor murder the child in utero, even if we’ve become culturally conditioned to treat the two scenarios differently.
As author Megan Basham courageously observes about the response to the case:
Women are increasingly going to excuse child murder because 25% of American women (at least) have blood guilt on their hands that they have never reckoned with. A quarter of American women have already murdered their own children. So it should hardly surprise us that they identify with the killer and not the victims.
Basham is suggesting, correctly, that the killing of a child in the womb in the early stages of gestation is, morally, the same crime as killing that child at 8- or 9-months’ gestation. You might think that to be an outlandish suggestion made by some white conservative woman of the modern era or something, but you’d be wrong.
Read more The AI scare
There was a bit more honesty in this conversation around a century ago, you see. In the days of American feminism’s infancy, feminists didn’t have the luxury of pretending that killing a baby early in a pregnancy was something other than killing a baby, because that fact was commonly understood as the simplest of truth.
Abortion was then, is now, and always will be the murder of a baby by a mother and her doctor. That’s why, in her 1938 autobiography, the eugenics proponent, Planned Parenthood founder, and feminist hero Margaret Sanger observed that contraception was always preferable to abortion. Her reasoning is less known among American feminists these days, but she openly argued that abortion is “the wrong way – no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.”
In this, Sanger is firmly in alignment with the Catholic Church, interestingly. Whatever other qualms one might have with Ms. Sanger and her troubling legacy, her thinking on this particular social question involved both morally sound and scientifically accurate reasoning.
Sanger is still worthy of severe criticism, however, because her willingness to argue for this tradeoff should remain horrifying. She admits that the child is alive at conception, but she weighs the innocent child’s right to life against the supposed right of the mother to kill her child in the womb.
And so, we return to Lindsay Clancy. It’s not difficult to imagine that this right of a mother to kill her child within the womb might extend to some supposed right for her to kill her child outside of the womb.
Is it any wonder, then, that there are large swathes of women who, though they may not represent anything resembling a majority, are finding sympathy for Lindsay Clancy rather than the three children that she murdered?
Read more Pox on the ‘get to no’ experts
Image: Screenshot from Inside Edition video, on YouTube