Like most other self-styled conservatard "thinkers," Kevin Williamson is more concerned about being a "provocateur" than actually saying something. I probably fail more than I succeed, but the goals of any writer -- especially an opinion writer -- should be clarity and organization. By the end of any opinion piece, the reader should have a very clear idea of the specifics of the writer's opinion on the subject. Otherwise, what's the point?
So we have a general idea by now that Williamson is anti-abortion. Fair enough. As a basic rule of principle, if you are calling for the criminalization for something that is currently legal, you should at least be able to provide some level of detail as to the punishment for engaging in this (again, currently legal) activity. This is especially true for something as culturally volatile as abortion.
(Gun rights would be another -- for example, it turns out that the father of Waffle House shooter Travis Reinking gave him back his weapons after they were confiscated at the White House last summer. Unfortunately, that does not break any current laws, but if you were to pass a law prohibiting that, what should the penalty be? Should it be open-ended and connected to whatever the person you know is mentally unstable does with the weapons you give him, and prosecuted accordingly? Discuss.)
But given his already problematic history of saying "provocative" things on the subject, Williamson has a particular responsibility to clarify his earlier musings. He's had plenty of opportunity to do so, and yet he keeps playing this stupid game.
On tonight's episode of The Jim Jefferies Show, he goes to Ireland to discuss that country's draconian abortion policies, and chats for a few minutes with a virulently anti-abortion politician. To his small credit, the politician actually answers the "penalty question" quite specifically: fourteen years in prison for the mother, death for the doctor. Okay then. For better or worse, a voter can actually make an informed decision with that.
Kevin Williamson, despite repeated entreaties, seems to think that the penalty question is just a cheap librul ruse. But it's central to the very question of repealing Roe v. Wade. Either you believe abortion should be legal (possibly with certain constraints), or you believe it should be a criminal offense. Given the pro-life movement's consistently strident rhetoric about it being murder, it's a fair question to ask whether they mean that literally, and would prosecute it as such if they got their way.
The fact that Williamson bleats that it's an unfair question, and resists every opportunity to clarify his previous published writings on the subject (right up to the end where he offers to write a paid article) reveals what everyone already knew about him, and the endless supply of "conservative" writers like him -- they talk a good game about first principles, but in the end, they're all just hacks and trolls. Under the bridge is where the money is.
So we have a general idea by now that Williamson is anti-abortion. Fair enough. As a basic rule of principle, if you are calling for the criminalization for something that is currently legal, you should at least be able to provide some level of detail as to the punishment for engaging in this (again, currently legal) activity. This is especially true for something as culturally volatile as abortion.
(Gun rights would be another -- for example, it turns out that the father of Waffle House shooter Travis Reinking gave him back his weapons after they were confiscated at the White House last summer. Unfortunately, that does not break any current laws, but if you were to pass a law prohibiting that, what should the penalty be? Should it be open-ended and connected to whatever the person you know is mentally unstable does with the weapons you give him, and prosecuted accordingly? Discuss.)
But given his already problematic history of saying "provocative" things on the subject, Williamson has a particular responsibility to clarify his earlier musings. He's had plenty of opportunity to do so, and yet he keeps playing this stupid game.
On tonight's episode of The Jim Jefferies Show, he goes to Ireland to discuss that country's draconian abortion policies, and chats for a few minutes with a virulently anti-abortion politician. To his small credit, the politician actually answers the "penalty question" quite specifically: fourteen years in prison for the mother, death for the doctor. Okay then. For better or worse, a voter can actually make an informed decision with that.
Kevin Williamson, despite repeated entreaties, seems to think that the penalty question is just a cheap librul ruse. But it's central to the very question of repealing Roe v. Wade. Either you believe abortion should be legal (possibly with certain constraints), or you believe it should be a criminal offense. Given the pro-life movement's consistently strident rhetoric about it being murder, it's a fair question to ask whether they mean that literally, and would prosecute it as such if they got their way.
The fact that Williamson bleats that it's an unfair question, and resists every opportunity to clarify his previous published writings on the subject (right up to the end where he offers to write a paid article) reveals what everyone already knew about him, and the endless supply of "conservative" writers like him -- they talk a good game about first principles, but in the end, they're all just hacks and trolls. Under the bridge is where the money is.
