Lindsay Clancy has been set free due to a mistrial. To many people, this should have been a simple open and shut case. She murdered her children and should be found guilty. To others, the broader question of whether people can be held to account, while suffering from a so-called mental illness, dominated the discourse. It is quite the spectacle. The feminist movement, at least the more radical aspect of it, seems content to argue that women can’t be held responsible for their behavior when their hormones are out of sorts. This has sparked the sharing of countless memes showing this was the general attitude of men starting the feminist movement in the first place. Women wanted to be equal in all aspects. All except for one it seems. They wish to reserve the right to blame their behavior on their emotions. Something men could never get away with themselves, but all throughout history, were content allowing women to do so. Logic would dictate a guilty verdict would be the more desirable outcome for feminists. Women will never be viewed the same again as the result of this trial has shown women can hide behind their emotional problems. Perhaps that is part of the bigger plan. There seems to be a psychological element to this, with a larger agenda looming in the background. Perhaps that agenda is the final destruction of the traditionalist view of women as mothers and caregivers. The trans movement has already attacked women’s identity with the absurd notion that men can identify as women. When men compete and win against women in sports, the message is that men can be better women than women. In some ways this situation can also be compared to the mass shooting narrative we see play out so often. A deranged individual, taking psychotropic drugs, just snaps and goes on a murder spree. Is that what we are supposed to take from this? Any woman suffering from post-partum depression can suddenly snap and kill her children? That is the message many men are hearing, as the internet is rife with stories of men leaving their soon to be wives because they “stand in solidarity with Lindsay.” Could there be another agenda? One meant to simply destroy the value we have for life in general? Let’s tie some pieces together, shall we? In 2013, The Journal of Medial Ethics published a disturbing article entitled Afterbirth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?, the authors argue that any reason excusing an abortion in general, should be enough of a justification to kill the child after it is born. People may be thinking about disabilities like Downs Syndrome, however, the authors make it clear that this applies in all cases, even where the child isn’t disabled. There are two reasons being argued to justify this frightening mentality. One, a newborn fetus is not seen as having the same moral status as the mother; therefore, if it places any burden on the mother at all, killing it is justified. Secondly, the newborn is not considered a person in the sense that it is not old enough to have developed any life goals of its own and because of this, terminating its life causes no real harm to anyone. The authors suggest that the only moral value the newborn has is whatever the mother assigns it, and that will likely be zero if the baby causes any burden to her or even the community. Exactly when do children start developing real life goals? Like abortion itself, that is a real slippery slope. The authors contend that morality, or personhood, don’t start until a newborn is no longer dependent on the mother, can develop life goals, and basically has agency of its own. Is this where we want to be? A place where life itself has been so demoralized that we no longer place any moral standard on the most innocent among us? A world where a newborn baby is seen as nothing but a burden, and killing it is the absolute right of the mother? The authors discuss adoption as an alternative to after birth abortion, and their conclusion is just as disturbing. They argue that adoption is not always a viable option if it places the mother in psychological stress due to the loss of the child. They also acknowledge the possibility of severe trauma resulting from after birth abortion, but insist that it cannot be assumed more traumatic than adoption. The idea of after birth abortions isn’t likely to gain a lot of momentum with the majority of Americans; however, it is the next stop after full term abortions. This is the bottom of the slippery slope. Currently, eleven U.S. states have laws allowing termination right up to the moment of birth. Where does this attitude towards the unborn come from? What type of mentality must one possess to justify killing their own unborn baby? Many abortion activists argue that the procedure is necessary because of unwanted pregnancies due to rape. According to a website called worldpopulationreview.com, only one percent of women who receive abortions report rape as the primary reason and instead, say that having a baby would be a major inconvenience in their lives. Another argument made by activists is that abortion is a necessary medical procedure because women die in childbirth. That is an interesting claim. First of all, it stands to reason that abortion would be acceptable in the individual event of a woman dying, and the only way to save her life is to terminate the pregnancy. However, that is only .018% of the time. According to a website called biologyinsights.com, eighteen out of 100,000 women die from some complication while in delivery. While many people can relate abortion to Margaret Sanger, and the feminist movement itself to Marxism, and rightfully so, the loss of value for human life can also be attributed to Darwin and the theory of evolution. We all know that in 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that prayer in public schools violated the constitution. Religion was then replaced with evolutionary science. Before this theory made its way into the mainstream, there was an inherent, understood value for human life. Darwin’s theory changed all this as human beings were no longer seen as being a divine creation in the image of God but were now considered no different than animals. James Rachels writes in Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism, that because Darwin disproved the existence of God, a new morality that ceases to place man above other animals is needed. He also discusses something he calls moral individualism. This is the idea that a man’s life shouldn’t be automatically considered more valuable than any other animal. Chimpanzees, for example, share many of the same characteristics as humans; therefore, it is possible to see their life as having more value than some people. How does this relate to abortion, or the Clancey trial? A man named Ernst Haeckle wrote a book called The Natural History of Creation, based on Darwinism, where he claims that embryonic development always follows the evolutionary traits of its ancestors. What does that mean? Looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, and relating it to Rachels’ work, he is arguing that unborn, or even newborn babies, are no different than animals and have no moral value, thus justifying their killing. Because babies have no soul, and are no different than animals, killing them can not be equated to the immoral act of murder. How much of this sounds like the article from The Journal of Medical Ethics? What about the Marxist/Feminist angle? Throughout the duration of this trial feminist groups have been rallying for a not guilty verdict as they “stand in solidarity with Lindsay.” Do they know what the history of their movement is? According to a woman named Mallory Millet, who wrote an article entitled Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives, the modern feminist movement was all about destroying the nuclear family and devaluing the life of children in the eyes of modern women. She claims to have been part of a small group of radicals in college, which included Betty Friedan incidentally, who later went on to form the National Organization of Women. Their sole purpose, according to Millet, was to destroy the nuclear family and promote promiscuity, eroticism and even homosexuality. Motherhood, much like Friedan discussed in The Feminine Mystique, was seen as oppressive. Millet writes that the ultimate goal of women’s liberation is to “wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men and babies.” Yes, she said babies. She continues by saying “the tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little girl womb.” Most of us think of mothers as being the nurturer. When children hurt themselves, they seek their mother’s tender touch, for example. The goal of the feminist movement is to destroy this aspect of womanhood and separate them from their natural inclinations to be mothers. Whether any of this has a direct correlation to what we are witnessing with Lindsay Clancy, or modern feminism even, is anyone’s guess. However, sometimes observable reality is proof of many things. We are not only watching the feminist movement rally behind Lindsay Clancy, with seemingly no empathy for the children at all, we are also watching women across the internet make videos of themselves having a breakdown, while portraying themselves harming their children. We also see women fiercely support the abortion rights movement under the guise of abortion being a human right. It has all become about nothing more than the woman having the right to choose what to do with her body, with no consideration for the life inside of her. Do you recall the quote above? “The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little girl womb.” At the beginning of this article the question of whether there was a larger agenda to destroy the value of human life was posed. It is pretty evident that has been on the agenda for a long time, and we are not at the beginning stages of it, but at the tail end where woman have been trained to place themselves above all else, and that children are nothing but a burden. Newborns have no soul and are the moral equivalent of an animal, making it ok to kill it with no repercussions. There is more at stake here than mental illness excusing crime. The demand for a not guilty verdict by these radical feminists is an indication of what being a mother means to them, and what value they place on human life. It is, as the feminist movement has always been, a complete repudiation of God’s design and the roles men and women were meant to fill. While feminists cry about oppression and equality, they completely reject the role of nurturer and caregiver while ignoring the fact good men cherish them for these values. Instead of seeking fulfillment through raising children and loving a man, they find liberation in the idea of being free to brush off any personal responsibility and killing their children. God help us all. Enjoy this content? Be sure to check out my latest book! The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda: The Things You Should Know. Check these out as well. Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion. and A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy Copyright 2026. This is the intellectual property of David Risselada and defenseofournation.com