Hillary on Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahimsa

Guest
Abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women,” said Clinton. Then she went further: “There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.” *Does not ever have to be exercised. *I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I’ve never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never.

Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband’s presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I’m sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that’s the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.
 
Ahimsa said:
Abortion is “a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women,” said Clinton. Then she went further: “There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances.” *Does not ever have to be exercised. *I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I’ve never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never.

Once you embrace that truth—that the ideal number of abortions is zero—voters open their ears. They listen when you point out, as Clinton did, that the abortion rate fell drastically during her husband’s presidency but has risen in more states than it has fallen under George W. Bush. I’m sure these trends have more to do with economics than morals, but that’s the point. Once we agree that the goal is zero, we can stop asking which party yaps more about fighting abortion and start asking which party gets results.
Click to expand...

I am sorry I do not buy the tap dance:( It is not a constitutional right to kill an innocent person,this is more double talk perpetuating a lie.When she admits it is not a “right” I will listen to her.God Bless
 
When she shows up at the March for Life, I will believe her.
 
40.png
Lisa4Catholics:
I am sorry I do not buy the tap dance:( It is not a constitutional right to kill an innocent person,this is more double talk perpetuating a lie.When she admits it is not a “right” I will listen to her.God Bless
Click to expand...
No offfense, Lisa, but based on the rabid and hysterical responses from the right wing every time Mrs. Clinton makes any comment, it seems to me that her politcal adversaries spend a lot of time listening to her. Personally, I wish they would be like you and not listen.

Anyway, unlike some, my agenda is saving unborn lives, not winning political points. I believe pro-life laws are a big part of that, but I am well aware that they are only part of the proper response, and, in certain circumstances, (circumstances I don’t believe are present in contemporary American society) can be a minor part of the response.

Working with people like Mrs. Clinton to find means she supports for stopping abortions doesn’t require anyone to stop also persuing other means such as pro-life legislation.

A real pro-lifer will take 'all of the above" in the cause of saving the unborn. Those with a political agenda, will only follow one secular philosophy’s plan for stopping abortion.
 
40.png
katherine2:
No offfense, Lisa, but based on the rabid and hysterical responses from the right wing every time Mrs. Clinton makes any comment, it seems to me that her politcal adversaries spend a lot of time listening to her. Personally, I wish they would be like you and not listen.

Anyway, unlike some, my agenda is saving unborn lives, not winning political points. I believe pro-life laws are a big part of that, but I am well aware that they are only part of the proper response, and, in certain circumstances, (circumstances I don’t believe are present in contemporary American society) can be a minor part of the response.

Working with people like Mrs. Clinton to find means she supports for stopping abortions doesn’t require anyone to stop also persuing other means such as pro-life legislation.

A real pro-lifer will take 'all of the above" in the cause of saving the unborn. Those with a political agenda, will only follow one secular philosophy’s plan for stopping abortion.
Click to expand...
She is using this language to gain political advantage, all of her previous comments before the loss of Kerry is now changed because she is trying to appear to appease both.If you are suggesting I am not a real pro-lifer,I am not surprised coming from you I have seen your posts and dealt with you before, like clock work you resort to attacking or twisting posts.When slavery was legal I wonder if her attempt to justify it as a constitutional “right” would fly while saying we can minimize it out of existence as long as it remains a right.What if Hitler said we want to maintain the right to kill the Jews but we will try to make it rare and hopefully non-existant.Would that have made everything good?Now go ahead start twisting.God Bless
 
Oh you posted and ran:( Well I will wait for your respose.
 
Go get 'em Tigger…er…I mean tiger…

Let me add my :twocents: …

Anyone who falls for the political posturing of the likes of H.C. has got a smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/12/12_5_15.gif loose… :whacky: …

HellOOooo…"Hillary"care? Taxpayer funded abortions standard on all health insurance plans?

1994–UN Population Conference in Cairo–she promoted abortion on demand as a “fundamental right”?

In her most recent statements, she claimed to support parental notification laws, but then (under pressure from Family Planning Advocates ((LOVE the euphemism))) had aids clarify that really what she meant was that she liked the idea of minors getting information about “options” but the parents of the minor seeking an abortion don’t really need to be told…Parental notification WITHOUT parental notification??? She must be getting rhetoric lessons from her husband.
 
Listening to Mrs Clinton speaking on abortion, I am reminded of the parable of the unjust judge.

Mrs. Clinton wants to be president, and being the political animal she is, can read the results of the last election. The Democrats’ pro-abortion, pro-gay rights position is a loser. In order to be competitive with the Republicans (who pretty much have offered mostly lip service to the pro life cause) Hillary and the Democrats must be seen as at least appearing to be softening their rabid pro abortion stance. Whether Hillary undergoes a sincere conversion or whether she’s just making a political calculation, the net result is good for pro life. The fact that Hillary is taking this tack means that we are making progress in the battle to outlaw baby killing.
 
40.png
gnjsdad:
The fact that Hillary is taking this tack means that we are making progress in the battle to outlaw baby killing.
Click to expand...
Okay…and the Devil can quote Scripture…but I don’t want him preachin’ at my pulpit!
 
40.png
katherine2:
No offfense, Lisa, but based on the rabid and hysterical responses from the right wing every time Mrs. Clinton makes any comment, it seems to me that her politcal adversaries spend a lot of time listening to her. Personally, I wish they would be like you and not listen.

A real pro-lifer will take 'all of the above" in the cause of saving the unborn. Those with a political agenda, will only follow one secular philosophy’s plan for stopping abortion.
Click to expand...
K2, the reason we react “rabidly” is because we don’t trust her. She acts as if she can do a 180 on this issue and we’re all so stupid we will lap it up like sweet cream. She and her husband are slippery, protean creatures who will create the right personae for the right moment. I don’t believe a word she says. I think she is very cagey and will do ANYTHING to get elected. If she had ANY kind of history but pro abort Feminazi, I would be far more cheered by her message. I do not trust that woman and pray she will NEVER be our President.

Lisa N

PS I know you were responding to Lisa4Catholics but this is my 2cts
 
Lisa N:
K2, the reason we react “rabidly” is because we don’t trust her. … I don’t believe a word she says. I think she is very cagey and will do ANYTHING to get elected. … I do not trust that woman
Lisa N
Click to expand...
Well, Lisa, wipe the foam from your mouth, because I support your right to your opinion.

You are totally free to make a private judgement as to her trustworthiness. In fact, every Catholic (and person of good will) is free to make a private judgement as to the trustworthiness of every candidate for public office on their stated views on abortion or any other issue. And having made that private judgement, they are free in good conscience to act accordingly.

I’m glad we have a point of agreement. Good Lent.
 
40.png
katherine2:
You are totally free to make a private judgement as to her trustworthiness.
Click to expand...
Yes…that is true…
In fact, every Catholic (and person of good will) is free to make a private judgement as to the trustworthiness of every candidate for public office on their stated views on abortion or any other issue.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh…yeah…
And having made that private judgement, they are free in good conscience to act accordingly.
Click to expand...
Not if their “good conscience” is not formed by “right reason”!

If your aiming to justify voting for a pro-abort politician–Check out the CCC starting at 1783 :tsktsk:
 
40.png
katherine2:
Well, Lisa, wipe the foam from your mouth, because I support your right to your opinion.

You are totally free to make a private judgement as to her trustworthiness. In fact, every Catholic (and person of good will) is free to make a private judgement as to the trustworthiness of every candidate for public office on their stated views on abortion or any other issue. And having made that private judgement, they are free in good conscience to act accordingly.

I’m glad we have a point of agreement. Good Lent.
Click to expand...
K2 I do not trust any wet fingered politicians who change their positions everytime the wind blows. Hillary has proven to be consistently inconsistent and a poll watcher. If she gave me any reason to trust her I’d be delighted with this new Hill she is willing to die on. I think she’s as solid as as a jellyfish with about that much spine.

Lisa N
 
Katherine is a Democrat first, pro-life second.

Which, unfortunately makes her Catholic second.

I have no issue with her supporting someone like Bob Casey Jr.

But Hillary??

Listen, if she were pro-life, she would possibly win nationally. But she is not and she won’t. EVER.

The MSM will try, but her past will haunt her.

And quite frankly, beyond her policy choices, her presentation is not up to snuff. Her VOICE (Oh, goodness, that hauranging voice!) will do her in too. I’ll take a bumble and a stumble by Bush over any 20 seconds of a passionate Hillary Clinton screech, um, I mean speech. I cannot imagine a frumpy man being president. Or a short one, for that matter. Bill had twenty years of a record (not terribly impressive, by the way, but) the looks (to some anyway), the charm, the soft southern drawl, the “cool” factor…Hillary has NONE of these.

Before all of the women cry foul: “You saying only a man should be president??!” NO, and all I am saying is it won’t be Hillary.

But it could be Condi. 😉
 
40.png
JakeW:
But Hillary??

Listen, if she were pro-life, she would possibly win nationally. But she is not and she won’t. EVER.

The MSM will try, but her past will haunt her.

And quite frankly, beyond her policy choices, her presentation is not up to snuff. Her VOICE (Oh, goodness, that hauranging voice!) will do her in too. I’ll take a bumble and a stumble by Bush over any 20 seconds of a passionate Hillary Clinton screech, um, I mean speech. I cannot imagine a frumpy man being president. Or a short one, for that matter. Bill had twenty years of a record (not terribly impressive, by the way, but) the looks (to some anyway), the charm, the soft southern drawl, the “cool” factor…Hillary has NONE of these.

Before all of the women cry foul: “You saying only a man should be president??!” NO, and all I am saying is it won’t be Hillary.

But it could be Condi. 😉
Click to expand...
Off the main topic but I agree with you. What IS it about many of these women politicians that they have such grating voices? Hillary’s speeches, particularly when she is in her impassioned role, make the hair stand up on my arms. It’s like fingernails on a chalkboard. Same with Pelosi and Boxer. There is some sort of edge to their voices. I agree about Dr Rice. She, even when angered as she was during the hearings, does not SCREECH. I just cannot see a ‘shrew’ in the role of president. There are some very articulate and inspiring women in politics but so far they don’t seem interested in running.

I’d take Bush’s ‘mouthful of mush’ articulation or even Bill’s drawl over Hillary any day.

Lisa N
 
One female politician’s voice I really liked was Maggie Thatcher’s. Oh well.

This is old news and plenty of pundits went over it when it happened, what, a month ago? It is a pretty shrewd move on her part. Things have gotten so polarized that just *saying *that abortion was not a great thing was a shocker to her crowd. Can you imagine? That’s how far apart we are. They actually think that opposing the killing of the unborn is tantamount to “imposing” our religious beliefs on everyone. Lotta work to do there.
 
40.png
JakeW:
Katherine is a Democrat first, pro-life second.

Which, unfortunately makes her Catholic second.
Click to expand...
Jake,
Those nasty statements are just plain cheezy and dishonorable. It’s one thing to disagree, it’s another to sink to prepubescent name calling. Debasing others in no way makes for a free and honest debating arena.
Jennifer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top