H. Clinton's natural maternal instincts to protect children and the liberation from those very instincts that radical feminism provides seem to kick in at politically opportune moments.
Hillary Clinton on Virginia Tech shootings: "As a parent, I am filled with sorrow for the mothers and fathers and loved ones struggling with the sudden, unbearable news of a lost son or daughter..."
Hillary Clinton on Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on partial birth abortions: "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account."
SO, your saying that someone can't be pro-choice AND feel for the families affected by the terrible massacre? WRONG!!
ReplyDeleteIf you've ever known someone who has lost a child, you realize that no parent has the faculties needed to lose a child. Losing a parent, or even a sibling, is different; it is incredebly difficult, but it is ultimately in our nature as children to pull away, and move on (to a certain extent at least). However, it is in the nature of a parent to protect their children always, which is why parents will give up their lives to save their child. Any emotionally well-adjusted parent would rather die than see their child die. It is also an undisputed fact that parents who abuse or desire to kill their (born) children have something psychologically and emotionally wrong with them.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, any mother who believes that it is a good thing for women to murder their children is emotionally stunted. Albeit, to say that Hilary is incapable of feeling anything for the parents of the VT students is very possibly a generalization, as we can't see into her soul; she would have to be devoid of all emotion if she didn't have some sense of empathy. Nevertheless, something is tragically unnatural in her maternal instincts if she still believes that a woman, deliberately taking the life of her child, is a good thing.
A clarification: I never doubted that any rational person would feel terribly for victims and families of the VA tragedy. Nice try there...I assumed most would be sufficiently astute to perceive the distinction. It's precisely because there is universal consensus in recognizing the VA tragedy for what it is that makes certain people's reading of abortion, as a right to celebrate, very troubling.
ReplyDeleteThe inconsistency I point out is that there is a serious paucity of compassion from Democrat quarters for the millions of innocent children KILLED in abortion. If you are so inept so as to be incapable of seeing partial birth abortion as the infanticide that it is, we can go no further in a serious, rational debate. When reason is clouded by ideology and emotion, debate ceases.
I will say this much:
Let's pull aside the veil from this rhetorical chicanery. What does pro-choice really mean? Is choice an absolute right? Does "choice" alone determine the justness of an act. I can choose to do a lot of things...but does the simple fact that I choose to do X make it praiseworthy in the moral sense? Or does the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a "right" make it an authentic right and thus a moral good? Behold sophistry and positivism at its best! If abortion, particularly partial birth abortion, isn't murder, I would be very curious to know what then would constitute murder in the eyes of the pro-abortion crowd. Murder is the choice of one person to intentionally and unjustly end the life of another.
Now, it is true that women who have abortions do not believe that an innocent life is being terminated so the element of intent also comes into play and may mitigate, to some degree, her culpability in the act. But the fact is, an innocent life is indeed ended even if one doesn't directly intend that to be the end result. Some are fond of tossing in catchy and distracting euphemisms like "terminating a pregnancy" or "reproductive rights," but with abortion, I'll stick with the most obvious definition: "termination of an innocent life."
What is involved in this particularly gruesome CHOICE? Let's look at the plain as day facts: A fully developed baby, 90% delivered, skull punctured, brains sucked out, skull crushed, and promptly disposed of like common debris. But hey, as long as someone chose it, right? As an homage to my city of residence: Quod erat demonstrandum.
Hillary's disgusting and unrelenting defense of this choice undermines her oft repeated platitudes of concern for "the children."
Wake up.
As far as abortion goes, at least the Supreme Court is heading the right direction as seen in the recent Gonzales v. Carhart case upholding the ban on partial birth abortion.
ReplyDelete