Abortion Culture Explains The Lindsay Clancy Support
A well known atheist philosopher named Peter Singer once claimed that for pro-abortion advocates to remain consistent, they would have to accept the morality of infanticide. He claimed that before a newborn reaches the 30 day mark, they aren’t a person due to their limited sense of self-awareness. Singer was making a point about the inconsistencies between valuing sentience and valuing a newborn who has no more sentience than a particularly intelligent dog. In his attempt to remain as consistent as possible within his logic, Singer hit on something fundamentally true: if we don’t value babies in the womb, why would we value them outside the womb?
Over the past few months, the online world has devolved into the scene of a true crime junkie meetup. A large group of women watching and analyzing the trial of a woman who confessed to killing her three children, treating this tragedy as their own personal “whodunnit” case. Women have lined themselves outside the Plymouth Superior Courthouse clad in pink in support of a woman who confessed to strangling her three children. The trial was to determine whether or not Clancy was criminally liable for the murders due to reasons of insanity. Despite Lindsay and her own defense team admitting to the crimes, some TikTok sleuths tried to pin the blame on the children’s father, Patrick. The trial ultimately ended in a mistrial due to one lone juror who did not want to acquit Clancy due to reasons of insanity. He is perhaps the only of the twelve who saw Lindsay’s children for what they are: innocent victims of a mother’s selfish and violent choice.
Many women were disappointed in this result. Cora, Dawson, and Callum are seen as just byproducts of Lindsay’s mental states to these women. Lindsay is, in fact, the true victim since she couldn’t be held responsible for her actions due to hormones causing her mental distress, or to some particularly paranoid internet sleuths, because she didn’t do it at all. Progressive women find it hard to wrap their minds around the possibility that women are capable of evil, since they are just “victims of a patriarchy”. For a century women have spouted the idea that their happiness and autonomy trump their own children’s through abortion advocacy. They dehumanize the preborn in order to justify their murder. When preborn humans are referred to as clumps of cells, why can’t born children also just be inconvenient victims of a mother’s hormones?
If abortion proponents want to claim that those in the womb are fair game as victims of a mother’s circumstance, why couldn’t they apply this same logic to born children? Years and years of women claiming that they are the arbiter of who lives and dies when it comes to their own children has inevitably led to the dehumanization of children in society. Women took the Clancy trial as an opportunity to complain about motherhood, even posting videos with captions “Same, Lindsay”. The pro-choice movement has evolved far past the “safe, legal, and rare” ideology of the past, and now turned into a movement with shameless bloodlust and selfishness. If we cannot protect the most vulnerable class of people or expect women to protect their children in the womb, how can that sort of society be fair and just? Expecting women to protect their children in and out of the womb should be the bare minimum when it comes to a woman’s role in society. Until we recognize the humanity of those in the womb, the dehumanization of children will continue towards more horrifying ends.
