Hillary’s “common ground” begins to shift under its false weight

Ah, and here we are. It was only a few months ago that the MSM told us – with many blaring headlines – that Hillary Clinton – that old paragon of clear-thinking and leadership (tell me, has she ever made a public statement on Terri Schiavo? Don’t bother looking it up, the answer is no) was prancing toward a “more centrist” position on abortion. “She is seeking “common ground” with the pro-lifers!” the msm sighed in starry-eyed-sycophantasia. “Hillary is going to bring something real to the debate.”

Um. No. She isn’t going to bring something real to the debate, and she never was going to. Hillary’s “common ground” gesture was simply that – a gesture. A Hillarian escape of warm air from her lungs, meaning absolutely nothing beyond the sound bite, the quote for the record and the wink-wink “you-guys-all-know-this-doesn’t-change-anything” to her base. Hillary never actually says anything that means anything. She just gasses away, droning from the script and the press does the actual thumping for her.

In the case of her “common ground” remarks, well, there is much less there than meets the eye. The issue of abortion is a deep fault line in the nation, and the only real common ground to be found at any fault line would have to be a created ground, i.e. a bridge. And a bridge built over a fault line will easily crumble, as fault lines are notoriously unstable. Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion, while laudable (I suppose) for its tone, brings no solutions and satisfies no one because it does not address what caused the initial shift in the plate tectonics of American morality. That instability was wrought by a simple question and its two possible answers: Is abortion really okay, or not? If so, then it should always be okay, and there can be no common ground. If not, then it should never be okay. And there can be no common ground.

So, let’s stop pretending that Hillary Clinton is actually saying anything on abortion. She’s not. She’s saying verrrrry little, here, too. “I oppose the House-passed bill, which glosses over these complicated situations, making criminals out of grandparents, clergy and other adults who try to act in good faith.”

Clinton — despite preaching moderation in recent speeches — will toe the Democratic line in the Senate in an effort to block a GOP-backed bill that just passed the House and makes it illegal for anyone to help a girl get a secret out-of-state abortion.

Here is where the press – even conservative papers like the NY Post – make their bloomer. Clinton never preached moderation. Her “common ground” comments amounted to: “I’m not moving one step closer to the middle, but I think we should talk nicer to each other about this until we finally get these pro-lifers to give it up.”

Because the truth is what I have already said: there can be no common ground on this issue. There can be no common ground on an idea that an “adult in good faith” should be able to take an underage girl out of state to procure an abortion. While Hillary and her cohorts plead “compassion” here what they are doing is making it easy for your 14 year-old daughter’s 24 year-old exploiter to take her across the state lines and have the evidence of his statutory rape vacuumed out of her body before he leaves her, crushed and alone, to deal forever with what has happened to her. While her family knows nothing about any of it and wonders why she is suddenly depressed, morose, dressing in black and cutting herself.

That’s compassion for you.

There is a television show on Fox, called “House.” One of the few shows I watch on tv. “House” is an unorthodox physician – a brilliant diagnostician with an addiction to pain killers and a witheringly sarcastic and bitter mien. In last week’s episode he was – by law – unable to inform the parents of a 12 year old that she was pregnant, or that in order to save her life the pregnancy would have to be terminated. “She’ll get better. She will need a minor surgery to help her get better. That’s all I can tell you,” he said to the parents both with bitterness and some compassion. He found it troubling that he could not help the 12 year old talk to her family about her situation. “By law, since you are capable of bleeding from your vagina you are also capable of making all of these decisions in privacy, and your parents have no right to know anything in the state of New Jersey.”

So, in many states a 12 year old who has been exploited by, say, a 16 year old – or a 26 year old – is “protected” from her terrible, bad old parents, who couldn’t possibly have her best interests at heart. And Hillary wants to make sure that if some unlucky 12 year old does NOT live in such a state, why some compassionate, completely disinterested and unselfish adult near that child will be able to spirit her across state lines – without her parents knowledge – to make certain that an abortion, “the very best alternative” to so many minds, the be-all-and-end-all of women’s “freedom,” can be procured for a few hundred dollars, and nothing every has to be looked at or addressed. How tidy.

I have an idea! Let’s do something a little radical today, okay? Let’s actually sit down and talk for a moment about what is going when a woman is having an abortion. And because the left is so jumpy about these “Theocrat” Christian moralists having undue influence on our laws and culture, let’s leave religion out of it. Let’s start from the rather acceptable premise that “what goes around comes around,” aka Karma. And just for fun let’s bring in the sort of new-agey idea of “energy” or “life force” – what Chinese Medicine calls “chi” and put it all together, and see what we get, mmkay?

Okay, when sperm meets egg and creates the troublesome creature known as a human zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, we see cells multiply and multiply – an event that is powered by something – call it a life-force. There is energy there – real energy, moving, growing, creating, evolving – and that energy is protected and nurtured within the walls of a uterus, deep within the body of a human female – utterly at her core.

In an abortion, that life force must be stopped because if it is not, that evolving creature in uteri will become a fully formed baby, a recognisable human being who will require something of the rest of us for some 80-odd years, if all goes well.

How is that life force “stopped?”

Well, there are many means of “dis-enabling the life force” of a fetus. Some are more efficient than others, and some are less dangerous than others. These days the most legal abortions are performed by inserting a sort of vacuum into the vagina of a female of pretty much any age, its nozzel inserted past the cervix of the uterus and introduced to the creature clinging to the walls of the uterus, which it only knows as nurturer, or “mother.” The vacuum is turned on, the creature is quickly ripped to shreds and sucked through the pipe, landing in a sterile little container that will remind you of those “baby-in-a-blender” jokes you might have heard in Jr. High School. The life force, or chi, or energy of the baby is gone. Destroyed. And that violent action took place deeply within the body of the woman…so, where her body once hosted an innocent and pure, rather positive sort of chi, there is now an energy of a different sort, a mean energy, a destructive energy, a chi of catastrophic violence and death.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Destroy a good chi, and you will only do so by introducing a bad chi. Any Chinese physician will tell you this. In the case of an abortion, you get to live with that bad energy not just around you but inside you. And it’s not a bad energy that simply found its way inside you, like a cancer or disease…no, it’s a bad, negative, murderous energy, that you have brought inside yourself. You’ve invited it in.

This cannot be a good thing. They never tell us stuff like this, when they talk about abortion, do they? No…all we ever hear is how abortion serves women. Truthfully, abortion serves men, and it serves The Destructor. For most women, they have not been served, only further burdened.

Now, if a pregnancy is too far along for the vacuum, if the little life-force has grown enough to have a substantial hold on its mother and cannot be snuffed out by a pill or a burning saline wash, a physician may perform a dilation and curettage, or “D&C” – in this case, he or she will dilate – or open – the cervix and introduce a curette and scrape and pull and yank the stubborn little mite apart. All of this happens, again, within the woman’s womb. Deeply inside the woman, violence and murder are taking place. She’s traded her little bundle of inconvenience for a bundle of negative chi. She’s supposed to hop off the table and feel good about all that, afterward.

If a pregnancy is too far along for a D&C there is one more option, one more way in which this life force can be stopped. The infant is delivered feet first and then, before the head is delivered and the baby takes a breath, making it an indesputably ALIVE baby that is now worthy of legal protection, the “physician” will take something sharp, like a pair of scissors, and shove them into the back of the tender neck, at the base of the skull. Then he will use suction to whoosh out the brains of the little tyke, making it easier to collapse its skull and complete the “delivery.” This particularly savage sort of abortion takes place partially in the birth canal/vaginal tract of a woman – still inside her – but it is also partially taking place outside her body…so all that negative, violent energy gets to live in our world, with us, too.

By the way, the American Medical Association has stated that since Cesarian Sections are widely available throughout this nation under God, there is really no reason, ever for a partial birth abortion to be procured “in order to save the life of the mother.” There must be some other reason these people like them so much.

Okay, so now we have explored, at sickening depth, what is actually happening during an abortion, and I feel like throwing up, and it’s not because I am still getting over pnuemonia and am weakish. Here is my question for Hillary Clinton and the members of the MSM who swoon over her meaningless talk of “common ground.”

The question is this: Where, exactly, is this common ground supposed to be found?

What is an abortion? Is it the horrific destruction of human life, or is it the moral and physical equivalent of a skin-tag removal by your dermatologist? In a world where people cannot come together to agree on what is taking place at this event, there can be no common ground.

“Aha!” some will say, “what about cases of rape – surely we can all find common ground on the issue of rape! Let’s start there! We can agree that a woman who has been raped should have every opportunity to abort!”

Really? I want to know more about that. We’ve heard for thirty years that a woman who has been raped should not have to bear the additional burden of carrying and delivering the rapist’s child. And on a purely emotional and sympathetic level, most people will nod their heads and agree. But I wonder about it. I’ve read numerous stories of women who delivered their babies concieved in rape – either to raise the child or to allow it’s adoption – and I have never seen such a woman declare that doing so extended the terror of her rape or victimized her further. Usually these women say just the opposite – that in allowing the innocent baby (which is partly her own flesh) to live, she has delivered herself of something horrific, that out of something profoundly negative, they have managed to deliver something positive and yes, healing.

A positive from a negative – the exact opposite of abortion. I have never been able to understand how a woman who has been violated and victimized in rape can be somehow cleansed of the effects of that rape by the additional violation and violence of an abortion. Maybe it’s possible, but I just don’t see how. How does an abortion after rape bring healing and closure to a victim? I’m not being insensitive, here, I really want to know. I suppose, for some women, an abortion seems to make sense, that it “finishes” the issue, closes the door on the whole ugly and traumatic event. But does it ever, really? It’s a question no one is asking, anywhere. It needs asking.

Common ground. I don’t know, I just DON’T see it. I look and look and I cannot get past the fact that an abortion destroys human life, prevents new love from entering the world and ultimately creates additional risks and woes for women. I don’t see where this illusory common ground can exist.

And don’t kid yourselves. Neither does Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE: Kim at Musing Minds has an interesting post about Judge Andrew Napolitano and an abortion case.

Related: Hillary’s common ground sinks some more
Hillary’s meaningless common ground.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://davejustus.blogspot.com Dave Justus

    I think that their can be ‘common ground’ on abortion, although it is difficult to find.

    First off, I think that religious people should acknowledge that not everything they think is immoral should be illegal.

    Second, I think that pro-abortion advocates should acknowledge that a woman’s right can, and should be limited by the competing rights of a fetus/infants.

    At that point we would have to decide, collectively, where to draw the line between legal and moral.

    I think that first trimester abortions should be generally legal, although I certainly respect the right of those who believe they are immoral to preach that belief and try and convince others behave in a moral manner.

    I think that third trimester abortions should be generally illegal (cases where the life of the mother is in danger present a exception.)

    Somewhere in the second trimester we should draw the legal line. I don’t know exactly where, but I think that can be worked out by society with less bitterness than the current debate.

    In your Karma example, is the effect of a miscarriage the same as an abortion? In both cases life is being destroyed, and if positive chi can only be extinguished by negative chi is the effect the same?

    Even if early abortion is wrong (immoral), and invites negative chi into a person, I would require more than that for me to support it being illegal.

  • TheAnchoress

    A good, thoughtful comment, David. First, a miscarriage is not the same as an abortion – I know you know that, but I’m just saying it. While an abortion is happening, the body while under some stress due to the woman’s own state of mind up to an including that moment, is still thinking it is pregnant, the hormones are still pumping for pregnancy, all of that is stopped very quickly. There are some who think that the jolt to the system which abortion brings may be the catalyst for so much breast cancer (I will post on that, above) a miscarriage is different in that usually the body knows chemically – long before the mother has a clue – that this pregnancy is not going to work out, and it is doing its natural job in either resorbing or dispelling the fetus. The effect cannot be the same. One event is natural, one is not.

    I don’t know if “I” would use the “negative chi” argument to make abortion illegal, either. :-) I just put it out there in order to NOT bring religion into it. Good comment.

  • http://shotofpolitics.blogspot.com/ Joseph Marshall

    Well, now, I have had a little bit of teaching about karma myself, and I can easily agree that abortion is generally a bad idea in terms of the future of the people who have one, the people who do one, and the people who applaud it being done. I am none of these.

    But I would remark that the tactics of the “right to life” partisans merely consist of harrasing those who disagree with them without any serious attempt to address the state of the law. These tactics also virtually assure that the issue will never be settled within the lifetime of either of us.

    Why? First, because the state of the case law is such that continued passing of “abortion bills” merely assures their rejection by the courts, building up an overwhelming mountain of precedent which would have to be overcome in the court system by well-nigh completely clearing the Supreme Court and packing it with anti-abortion partisans who will overturn Roe v. Wade from personal prejudgement rather than on its legal merits. That simply will not happen.

    Second, this set of tactics clearly sustains the Republican political interest of NOT really undermining Roe v. Wade, in order to keep the culture wars alive for political advantage. Don’t believe me? Then read the tune Jeb Bush is now singing about interfering with the Florida courts over “moral issues” since the polls on the Schiavo affair have emerged.

    Third, on some level, the grassroots of the “right to life” movement implicitly accepts the above two facts. If they didn’t, their political tactics would be radically different and they would be working on the state legislatures to ratify a constitutional amendment overturning Roe v. Wade.

    Why do they accept it? I can’t say for sure, but I strongly suspect that the emotional charge from “opposing abortion” plays a far greater role in the “right to life” personal psychology than a realistic set of tactics to compel the state to outlaw it.

  • http://davejustus.blogspot.com Dave Justus

    The negative chi is of course a religious argument, just not a Christian one :)

    It won’t have any effect on materialist or atheists.

  • http://borgardblog.blogspot.com/ Diane Borgard

    Regarding Dave’s comment that not everything religious people people think is immoral should be made illegal, here is an anlogy of mine:


    How will history view us 150 years from now.

  • http://theornithophobe.blogspot.com/ Ornithophobe

    You managed to perfectly convey something I feel almost instinctively with this post. How can anything so destructive, so disregarding of humanity, ever be considered a positive thing? How can it be healthy or healing to snuff out an innocent life? The rape argument is deceptive- surely we don’t want to further traumatise such a woman. But I see post-rape abortion as creating additional victims for the perpetrator, and sullying the woman, the mother, with a crime equal in horror to the one done to her.

    My ex-husband, staunchly pro-choice, once tried to sway me with the rape argument. What if I were gangraped? What if the villain were a psychopathic subhuman? What if the baby were mentally deficient? Would I still bear it? Even then?

    He failed in his quest. My answer was clear. Even then, I would bear it. Gangraped by mental defective psychopaths with fatal gene-linked diseases; I would still have that baby. Because there is no way on earth I will ever make myself a murderess. Nothing could tempt me to take that much evil into my life and my soul.

  • http://kasobs.blogspot.com/ Kimsch

    Anchoress, I love House too. As we were watching this week’s episode and I heard House talk about the law in New Jersey (the child was from Chicago, at Princeton for a swim meet), I said to my husband “He doesn’t like this. He doesn’t like not being able to tell her parents.” Later on, when she told them herself (we assume from the visual of her suddely breaking down in tears), he is watching through a window. A very slight smile and slight nod of the head show that he is approving of her confession to her parents. Her parents immediate and unconditional hugs show that love her immensely.

    I totally agree with you on the difference between miscarriage and abortion. I have not had an abortion, but I have suffered three miscarriages. One was at 20 weeks after an amnio and I went into labor and delivered him (after being told the previous day that there was no heartbeat). more on that at my post Prenatal Testing. Emotions were up and down and all over the place over those losses, but the body knew. There were no physically adverse effects. On the rape question, I had always thought about that prior to having children and had decided that (if it should ever happen, thank God it has not) I would carry and care for that child. It would be mine. How could I abort a child which for all I knew would be the only child I could have?

  • http://ohhowilovejesus.com Jeanette

    I find it interesting that the ones who think abortion should be legal on this site’s comments are men.

    A question was asked about miscarriage. I had a miscarriage at 10 weeks into a pregnancy. I can tell you I grieved over that child as though it had lived and then died outside my body. When it came time that it would have been born I thought about it constantly and wondered what it would have been, what it would have looked like and how happy we would have been to have had it.

    Even now, over thirty years later I still think of that little shrimp-shaped fetus I saw that awful night. And I still grieve for it. I wondered if I had done something wrong to make it die, even though I know I didn’t.

    Now, if I feel that kind of guilt over something that was controlled by God or nature (however you prefer to classify it) how can any human being do it purposefully and not feel at least the same grief, emptiness and guilt I have felt? Knowing it was done deliberately would seem to make it unbearable in my mind.

  • http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester Jeff Miller

    Unfortunately the locaton of the common ground she selected resides inside an abortion clinic.

  • Greg

    When you were discussing the rape issue, and presented the other side’s argument that the woman shouldn’t have to carry and deliver “… the rapist’s child.”, it occured to me that this doesn’t seem to fit their mantra “it’s my body..”. While normally in abortion, the father has no rights – (because the child is legally 100% the mother’s, not counting child support), all of a sudden, in the case of rape, the child is “his”, not “hers”. It would be difficult to find a common ground when the ground keeps shifting.

  • stephanie

    Hmm. I’m not sure I can disagree or challenge your ideas of the negative energy. Makes sense. I had an abortion. And I thought about it. And decided I could live with those consequences if necessary. Thing is, I can’t say my decision was right or wrong. I am okay with it- felt nothing like Jeanette described, though I was only 5 weeks along, which might have made a difference. I still feel we (my partner was involved in the decision) made the right choice for us.
    I may have been wrong. Considered it, and can accept that if on judgement day that’s the verdict. I try to do the best I can with what I have, and fully acknowledge that some of my choices in life will be bad ones.
    But the consequences fo this decision- good, bad or indifferent- are mine, No one else’s. That’s why I’m pro choice. Because I am the only one who will suffer if my decision is wrong. The common ground, to me, isn’t that abortion is right.It’s that the choice is mine to make, and that it’s not the government’s place to protect me from myself.

  • http://realchoice.blogspot.com Christina

    This is so cool I blogged about it.

  • me2ewe

    Stephanie, I’m not so sure that the only ones who suffer from abortion are the women who have them. Research suggests that legal abortion has led to the increases we’ve seen in the last three decades in child abuse, abandonment of children by their fathers, and other social ills. Not saying any of this applies in your case, of course – but these are logical outcomes, sadly, once the life of an unborn child can be regarded as up for grabs.

  • me2ewe

    Many examples of research on effects of abortion can be found here and here.

    It’s also worth noting that even if a woman is only hurting herself by having an abortion, she doesn’t suffer in a vacuum. Her loved ones hurt along with her, her workplace suffers if her health (mental or physical) suffers … the effects can be very far-reaching. We’re all “part of the main.”

  • stephanie

    Me2ewe, I think there are a lot of thingts that have led to more child abandonment- and am not sure if there’s so much an increase in child abuse as more conversation about it and of course, new standards. I was spanked as a child- that’s now abuse. My mom was beaten with objects when bad- hairbrush, belt. That was not considered abuse in 1960. We’ve radically redefined what constitutes abuse in the last 30 years, and that also plays a significant part.

  • http://stophernow.blogspot.com Jami

    golly. i guess you’d know about gas coming out of lungs, given that you wrote such an ENORMOUS post without mentioning the fact that hillary has in the last few months taken three very important actions to limit abortions. she proposed a bill requiring insurance plans to cover birth control pills. the republicans shot it down. she proposed sending birth control to tsunami victims. the republicans shot it down. and she’s grilling the acting head of the FDA over why he won’t approve over-the-counter emergency contraception.

    EVERY LAST ONE OF THOSE THINGS WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS. if republicans were honestly pro-life, they’d also be pro-contraception.

    hillary has added immensely to the abortion discussion, and her views (safe, legal and NEVER) are exactly those of the majority of americans. if you can’t see through all the limbaugh bullsh– to admit it, that’s your problem, not hers.

  • stephanie


    First-”she proposed a bill requiring insurance plans to cover birth control pills. ” Most do, so this is redundant. Not to mention a box of condoms will cost you $4, so again, birth control is pretty easily available in this country.
    Second-Birth control to tsunami victims- Umm, think they have bigger things to worry about. If they’re dying of hunger or living on the streets, an uplanned pregnancy is not really they’re biggest concern, is it? Also, how would this decrease abortion rates IN THIS COUNTRY?
    Third-Grilling the FDA over making the morning after pill available OTC- umm, some people consider this to be an early term abortion, and it’s pretty easily available- at the same women’s clinic you can go to to get birth control (free if needed) or an abortion. Now, I agree that it should be an OTC, that that would make it easier. I’ll give her half credit for this one, but pushing the FDA is mostly grandstanding. If a safety concern develops (a la vioxx) she’ll also be the first in line grilling them on why they put women’s lives in danger.
    Note- I’m liberal, and not necessarily anti Hillary. But give me a break.

  • http://www.SilentRaindrops.com Julie

    Brilliant article, well-written and right on the money.