Hillary Clinton Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorolfr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suudy said:
Whoever said it was “a clear-cut case”? What is 100% clear from Catholic teaching is that direction abortion that intends the death of the unborn child is always and everywhere wrong. Period.

And the article is full of “better dead than underfed” arguments. For example:
For me, it’s not just about being pro-birth; it’s about being pro-life. All children deserve to live in a home and in a culture that welcomes them and can meet their basic needs. Every mother deserves the chance to thrive. Forcing millions of women to have children they can’t support, or driving them to Gosnell-style black market clinics, will not do.
So, much better to murder the child outright than worry about whether they will “live in a home and in a culture that welcomes them.” And what does “a culture that welcomes them” even mean?

Another example is the complete conflation of direct abortion, indirect abortion, and natural cases of termination. For example:
While it would be easier to debate one another if reproductive issues fell neatly into black and white categories of right and wrong, good and evil, most of us recognize this is simply not the case. The fact that a woman’s body naturally rejects hundreds of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises questions about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote. Do we count all those “natural abortions” as deaths? When does personhood begin — at fertilization? Implantation? The presence of brainwaves? The second trimester?
There’s an obvious equivocation on the use of abortion here. Abortion is an intended act. So whether or not the woman’s body rejects unborn children is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Is the author so clueless to recognize the difference? How many people mourn miscarriages?

And the whole thing wraps with with a love fest for contraception. First, there is no issue with access to contraception. PP and other organizations give it out like candy. It’s not expensive. And now Obamacare guarantees free access. Also, there’s no evidence that increased access to contraception reduces the instances of unintended pregnancies. Indeed, access to contraception has grown tremendously in the last 50 years. Despite this, even Guttmacher recognizes that the US has a significantly higher rate of unintended pregnancies than other developed countries.

Nowhere at any point is there any appeal to individual responsibility. Nowhere is any expectation placed on the man and woman involved to show restraint. And nowhere is there any appeal to alternatives that involve something other than murder.

This article is chock full of the usual left obfuscations, hand waving, and rationalizations. It seems to me that the author is pro-life only in the sense that abortion is “icky.” She shows no understanding or knowledge of what is at stake for the unborn.
Click to expand...
excellent post. 👍
 
Inisfallen said:
It is, isn’t it?

I’m always amazed when I hear some of the same people who frequently and often express the sentiment that “America is the greatest country on earth” change their tune when asked why we can’t provide for the health care of all of our citizens and proclaim just as loudly “we can’t do that.”

I’m not pointing fingers at anyone here, and I was no fan of the Clintons’ overly complex health insurance plan, but it does seem like sometimes there’s a bit of a disconnect between faith in good old American know-how and get-it-done ability and lack of faith in our ability to figure out this problem and get it done.
Click to expand...
Thinking that the ACA was a horrible piece of legislation, was overly complex, was banking on numbers that aren’t there to support it, and was sold to the public with lies doesn’t mean some of us don’t believe America can do better. Rarely does a bill of its scope that gets such nominal bipartisan support have a chance of success. It didn’t account for the myriad of pitfalls it has since encountered, and it should have. Assuming states would support it? Why? Their interests are their own states, not the entire populace. And that is its fundamental flaw - it is try to manage nationally what is best handled at a state level, if not lower. And it was only saved by a USSC that ruled its proponents’ own argument (that it wasn’t levying tax) was in fact wrong, but in doing so, the USSC justified the fines/taxes themselves. I can’t recall too many times I have seen that happen.

Ultimately, is the overall status of healthcare any better than it was before the ACA? By definition, the answer is no. Some are thankful for it, and some have been hurt by it. Which means in the end, we have the same situation we did before it was passed (some were happy, some were not), albeit at a much greater cost in terms of financial impact and issues like religious freedom that were not there in spades before.
 
Suudy said:
Whoever said it was “a clear-cut case”? What is 100% clear from Catholic teaching is that direct abortion that intends the death of the unborn child is always and everywhere wrong. Period.

And the article is full of “better dead than underfed” arguments. For example:
For me, it’s not just about being pro-birth; it’s about being pro-life. All children deserve to live in a home and in a culture that welcomes them and can meet their basic needs. Every mother deserves the chance to thrive. Forcing millions of women to have children they can’t support, or driving them to Gosnell-style black market clinics, will not do.
So, much better to murder the child outright than worry about whether they will “live in a home and in a culture that welcomes them.” And what does “a culture that welcomes them” even mean?

Another example is the complete conflation of direct abortion, indirect abortion, and natural cases of termination. For example:
While it would be easier to debate one another if reproductive issues fell neatly into black and white categories of right and wrong, good and evil, most of us recognize this is simply not the case. The fact that a woman’s body naturally rejects hundreds of fertilized eggs in her lifetime raises questions about where we draw the line regarding the personhood of a zygote. Do we count all those “natural abortions” as deaths? When does personhood begin — at fertilization? Implantation? The presence of brainwaves? The second trimester?
There’s an obvious equivocation on the use of abortion here. Abortion is an intended act. So whether or not the woman’s body rejects unborn children is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Is the author so clueless to recognize the difference? How many people mourn miscarriages?

And the whole thing wraps with with a love fest for contraception. First, there is no issue with access to contraception. PP and other organizations give it out like candy. It’s not expensive. And now Obamacare guarantees free access. Also, there’s no evidence that increased access to contraception reduces the instances of unintended pregnancies. Indeed, access to contraception has grown tremendously in the last 50 years. Despite this, even Guttmacher recognizes that the US has a significantly higher rate of unintended pregnancies than other developed countries.

Nowhere at any point is there any appeal to individual responsibility. Nowhere is any expectation placed on the man and woman involved to show restraint. And nowhere is there any appeal to alternatives that involve something other than murder.

This article is chock full of the usual left obfuscations, hand waving, and rationalizations. It seems to me that the author is pro-life only in the sense that abortion is “icky.” She shows no understanding or knowledge of what is at stake for the unborn.
Click to expand...
Did you read the two personal stories of women that the author of the article provides links to, one whose baby was already dead in the womb and stillborn, and the other whose baby was hopelessly non-viable with organs outside its body and so on, and the governmental restrictions and insurance complications involved in these cases? These cases are rare, of course, but they do give one pause regarding the mental and physical health of the mother as well as the problems that might arise if abortion were completely banned. They also give rise to the meaningless of terms such as “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in certain situations.
 
meltzerboy said:
Did you read the two personal stories of women that the author of the article provides links to, one whose baby was already dead in the womb and stillborn, and the other whose baby was hopelessly non-viable with organs outside its body and so on, and the governmental restrictions and insurance complications involved in these cases?
Click to expand...
I was aware of those cases. And both are conflations between direct abortion and other issues.
meltzerboy said:
These cases are rare, of course, but they do give one pause regarding the mental and physical health of the mother as well as the problems that might arise if abortion were completely banned.
Click to expand...
Nobody has denied anything about mental and physical health. And nobody is suggesting that all forms for abortion should be completely banned. What should be banned is the intentional, willful destruction of an innocent human being. Every effort should be made to preserve the life and dignity of the unborn child. That does not mean that pregnancies cannot be terminated early to preserve the life of the mother or other cases.
meltzerboy said:
They also give rise to the meaningless of terms such as “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in certain situations.
Click to expand...
Because pro-life and pro-“choice” have very wide spectrums of understanding, of course not every claim of pro-life or pro-“choice” will apply to every situation. Nobody thinks or has claimed otherwise.

What is clear, though, it is not pro-life to directly and intentionally kill another human being. I don’t think there’s a single disagreement on that point.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Wow, I can’t believe Hillary Clinton said this.

“Trump and his kids have killed a lot of animals”

She said in response to what ABC are saying where “animal rights protestors”…

Video: twitter.com/abcpolitics/status/761296864230543360
Click to expand...
LOL! It’s a great way to pivot that strangely placed animal rights protest to her advantage, I’ll give her that. Still it always makes me laugh with the security guys overreact and swarm the stage. I think the same thing happened to Trump at a rally near his plane a few months back too.
 
7_Sorrows said:
I thought it was bizarre too when I saw the clip.
Click to expand...
The Trump kids do a lot of big-game hunting. So they have been to Africa and killed elephants, crocodiles, bisons and leopards. Yea, really bizarre!
 
The Clinton campaign has pulled Virginia off its television ad buy for now after also doing so in Colorado earlier because Clinton holds a significant lead over Donald Trump nationally and in key states.

The campaign’s new television ad buy consists of Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The decisions reflect increasing confidence among Democrats that Clinton will keep Virginia and Colorado in the blue column this fall. The pro-Clinton super PAC Priorities USA is scaling back its Virginia and Colorado ad campaigns as well.

POLITICO’s Battleground State polling average gives Clinton a 5.2 point lead in Virginia — with the two newest public surveys, conducted last month, before Clinton chose Sen. Tim Kaine as her running mate, showing her with leads of 7 points and 9 points over Trump.

politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/08/clinton-virginia-ads-battleground-states-226681
 
_Abyssinia said:
Wow, I can’t believe Hillary Clinton said this.

“Trump and his kids have killed a lot of animals”

She said in response to what ABC are saying where “animal rights protestors”…
Click to expand...
Has Hillary changed to a vegan diet? Or do her hamburgers involve some form of tofu?
 
One of my friends yesterday said he saw the film: “Hillary’s America”.

Afterwards, he immediately went and registered to vote.
 
Monte_RCMS said:
One of my friends yesterday said he saw the film: “Hillary’s America”.

Afterwards, he immediately went and registered to vote.
Click to expand...
I don’t know yet if it is coming to my town. I want to see it badly. it depends on how it does in the metropolitan area south of us.
 
openmind77 said:
The Trump kids do a lot of big-game hunting. So they have been to Africa and killed elephants, crocodiles, bisons and leopards. Yea, really bizarre!
Click to expand...
How do you know this? You must know the Trumps pretty well.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top