While speaking at a No Ceilings event at the Lower Eastside Girls Club in New York on Thursday, April 17th, Chelsea Clinton made an important announcement. Seated on stage by her mother, Hillary Clinton, Chelsea revealed that she was pregnant, but with a smile proclaimed that she had decided to have an abortion.
After the crowd cheered and applauded, the moderator of the event remarked, “I don’t think anyone was smiling bigger than your mom”.
Afterwards, Hillary took to Twitter saying “So happy and proud of my daughter!” followed by former President Bill Clinton who tweeted “Excited to see Chelsea exercise her reproductive rights!”
The Real Celebration
Of course the above didn’t happen. On April 17th Chelsea Clinton announced that she was pregnant saying, “Marc and I are very excited that we have our first child arriving later this year.” The moderator did indeed say, “I don’t think anyone was smiling bigger than your mom,” but the smile on Clinton’s face was not over an abortion, but at the thought of having her first “grandchild”.
The actual tweets from the former first lady/secretary of state and president were “My most exciting title yet: Grandmother-To-Be!" and "Excited to add a new line to my Twitter bio...grandfather-to-be! @HillaryClinton and I are so happy for Chelsea and Marc!"
The real celebration this past Thursday for the parents and grandparents-to-be was over a coming baby, and the joy expressed by both was normal for such a wonderful event.
But in my opinion, the jubilation displayed by the Clintons exposed something very important about what they truly believe about an unborn baby – a belief that runs contrary to legislation they’ve championed in their political life.
Contradictions and Bad Logic
It’s no secret that the Clintons support abortion. No greater evidence for this can be found than their very public reaction many years ago to Mother Teresa’s speech at the 1994 National Prayer breakfast where the Calcutta nun denounced abortion. While she was interrupted numerous times with applause from the crowd that including a standing ovation, the Clintons (and Gores) sat in their chairs motionless and never once applauded Mother Teresa’s words.
But when it’s their own grandchild, it appears the Clintons see things differently, with their words most definitely betraying their true feelings on the matter. No talk of a non-person fetus, only of a child. A joyous celebration of something that, according to legislation they’ve supported, is only a potential life; a blob that has no legal rights in this country until it’s actually born. A life their daughter could terminate tomorrow if she desired.
You have to wonder, would they celebrate that?
The Clintons’ position on abortion is public record and is one of not aggressively pushing abortion but nonetheless ensuring the legality of it. It’s a stance used by many politicians who attempt to straddle the divide caused by the issue and is best summed up as, “I’m personally against abortion, but I would never force my views on anyone else and therefore I champion choice.”
While that viewpoint sounds very pious, when analyzed, it is one that is absolutely indefensible and illogical. If the fetus is a life, then why are you OK with someone else taking that life? If the fetus isn’t a life, then why are you personally against abortion? If you don’t know if the fetus is a life, who should be given the benefit of the doubt?
The Clintons and the Bible Agree
Although a person can argue that the question of abortion is not a religious matter but a human issue, in a very real sense (either explicitly or implicitly) the abortion debate does indeed pit those who deny there is a Creator against those who believe that God exists. At its heart is the question of if human beings have intrinsic moral value.
If God does not exist, then the answer is no and as Ingrid Newkirk, head of PETA, has said “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”. But if God does exist, and we are created in His image, then the answer is yes, we do possess intrinsic moral value and purpose, and life is precious.
Moving on from there involves deciding when a person actually becomes a person, with the three choices being agnosticism, gradualism, and decisive moment. Agnosticism, as we’ve already seen, should conclude with the benefit of the doubt being given to the unborn baby.
Gradualism shows itself to be untenable as a person cannot partially exist. Decisive moment is the only true choice, but then comes the discussion over when that ‘moment’ occurs.
While there are at least eight possible decisive moment choices that cause endless debates, it’s not hard to figure out where the Clintons stand – at least where their own child/grandchild is concerned. It’s conception.
I’m happy to report that God’s Word agrees with them. The Old Testament clearly states that if a pregnant woman is hurt such that her unborn baby dies, the one causing the child’s death forfeits their life (Ex. 21:22-25; cf. Gen. 9:6). The New Testament consistently uses the same Greek term (“brephos”) to identity an unborn (Luke 1:44) and born (e.g. Luke 2:12) baby.
The Bible is also replete with references to God forming us in the womb (e.g. Is. 44:24; Job 31:15; Ps. 104:30, 139:13-16) and creating each one of us for a purpose (e.g. Is. 49:1; Jer. 1:5; Luke 1:15; Gal. 1:15).
So while I’ve provocatively titled this article on purpose, I mean no disrespect towards the Clintons, pray that they welcome a healthy child in the future, and do not believe for a second that they would celebrate the ending of their child/grandchild’s life. Instead, their reactions are on par with what Psalm 127:3 says: “Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward."
I only wish they would use their positions in our culture to champion in the public square what they personally know to be true.
 You can read the full text of Mother Teresa’s speech at: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles4/MotherTeresaAbortion.php.
 You can read Peggy Noonan’s account of the event at: http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4828.