Hillary Clinton and “common ground” on abortion
Hillary Clinton has never voted or taken a specific position to demonstrate she seeks the “common ground” on abortion she promoted during the CNN Democrat presidential debate June 3:
The mildest move Clinton might have made to fulfill her hope for “common ground” would have been to support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which she opposed due to the “slippery slope of the legislative language that you [Sen. Rick Santorum] have carefully and cleverly crafted in this bill,” although the Supreme Court determined that assertion false. If Clinton could not support the PBA Ban, there is no pro-life legislation she will support.
Nevertheless, do you, as either a pro-lifer or pro-choicer, think there is any common ground?
One last thing. It’s interesting that Clinton implied at least twice during the clip above that abortion is immoral. It’s this sort of rhetoric, like her “safe, legal, and rare” line, that alienates pro-abortion constituents and actually damages the movement.
Jun.11, 2007 8:55 am |
Political anti-life bias |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
There is common ground, but it deals much more with support than with abortion legality. I believe that both pro-life and pro-choice individuals can work together to lower the rate of abortion.
However, Hillary is about the worst example of a “middle ground” politician I can imagine.
Maybe the Clinton house hold is so prochoice because they have a reputation. http://registeredoffenderslist.org/blog/uncategorized/clinton-sex-offender/
just thought this was funny.
I’m trying to keep an open mind about Hillary, but she’s such a panderer (Flag Burning Amendment???)
Anyway, coming to this site makes me wonder about “common ground.” Other than reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies (and only by certain methods), I don’t see any common ground between the pro-life and pro-choice camps.
I agree with Lauren on this one. I believe that PL’s and PC’s can come together and work to lower the rate (which I would love to see) of abortions.
As for Hillary, if hse some how manages to get into office, I am fleeing the United States (yes and I am pro-choice), I shall go to Canada, Mexico or Belize. I really really dont like that women (almost hate, but not quite).
Thats what I said when bush got (somehow) re elected. But I have all kinds of ties here (plus I go to school here). Its hard to cut them over a stupid politician.
A Hillary presidency would be annoying, but not as much a disaster as the current one.
Swanny,hahaha love that sign!!!
Agreed Hal
Anything worse than this one and we might as well just all pile into the Handbasket.
I’m prolife, and I can’t see that there would ever be any common ground that would include any kind of provision for abortion. I mean, either you kill the baby, or you don’t… it’s pretty black and white, IMO.
The common ground would be, to not kill a baby before it was born, which would be a prolife position and not common ground with the prochoice position at all.
I don’t see any room for common ground coming from either side.
Rightfully so, the pro-life side will and should always stand for life.
There is plenty of room for the pro-choice side to move more to the center but they refuse.
For example:
In my state simple basic legislation was initated to mandate proper medical information be given to a woman considering abortion. It also required her to wait 24 hours before making a decision that would affect her the rest of her life. Sounds reasonable.
The pro-choice movement dug in their heels because this common sense law would somehow “chip away at a woman’s right to abortion.”
Since they “care so much about women” You’d think they would already be given women proper medical information for them to review. Why should this have to be legislated???
I called the group heading up the protests against this bill to find out why they would be so adamately against something that is required for any other medical procedure. All I got was the same old clap trap “it will chip away at a woman’s right to abortion.”
No one I spoke to at this office could give me an intelligent reason why this was not necessary.
They were like drones who responded with the same statement. I even asked one woman if she would consider entering into any other medical procedure without knowing all of the risks associated with it. Guess what her response was…”but it will chip away at a woman’s right to abortion.”
How many of these same women would enter into any medical procedure and not want good solid medical information.
*OK now I am ranting*
Patients looking for boob jobs get a thorough pre-op and are told of all the risks associated with their procedures. They could never walk into an office and ask for and get a boob job same appointment.
The pro-choicers have the MSM on their side which continually corrupts the minds of the young by indoctrinating them into a pro-choice society making it very difficult to counter the lies they continue to spew.
They are getting even craftier with their marketing efforts ie. the mother’s day celebration at PP. What a joke.
Back when Bill ran for office the first time Hillary sat next to him with her ever fashionable head band looking like the dutiful wife and mother.
She blabbed on about how great parents she and Bill are and would never even let their precious daughter Chelsea get her ears peirced without their consent.
How can she support minors getting abortions without parental consent.
PPLLLEEEAASSEEE! She is such a phony loser.
Well I would think there should be some places for common ground. I believe some Pro-Aborts do agree with Parental Notification, not crossing state lines to get an abortion, supporting Crisis Pregnancy Centers, enforcing Planned Parenthood to report adults having sex with minors and etc. I know this is just a mere start but it’s something to build on.
The main divide I see between Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion camps are the ways to prevent pregnancy. Pro-Abortion camps want to educate teens on birth control which can be abortifacient in nature and can still transmit sexually transmitted diseases. The Pro-Life camp for the most part believes in abstinence only/ no sex until marriage education.
The “abstinence only” education is the only way to prevent teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. We have tried to prevent abortions using the ideas of the Pro-Abortion camp for over 40 years and its not working. It’s time to try the Pro-Life “abstinence only” education.
It’s really the Pro-Aborts inability to try a new method which is holding things up on trying to find “common ground”.
Mike
Leave it up to CNN (Clinton news network) to let her get off with an easy question like that. The better question would be “why should abortion” be rare, and why is it “immoral”.
“Nevertheless, do you, as either a pro-lifer or pro-choicer, think there is any common ground?”
Reducing unwanted pregnancies sounds like a no-brainer. However, absolutist fetus-centric pro-lifers don’t seem interested in that, and pretty much oppose anything they feel would facilitate safer sex as it inadvertently and supposedly is a wink and a nod to go ahead.
So, common ground? yes. cooperation between camps to realize this common ground? Definately not coming from prolife.
Cameron said: Reducing unwanted pregnancies sounds like a no-brainer. However, absolutist fetus-centric pro-lifers don’t seem interested in that, and pretty much oppose anything they feel would facilitate safer sex as it inadvertently and supposedly is a wink and a nod to go ahead.
Cameron said: “A recent study in Scottland found that even the availability of PlanB didn’t reduce abortions.”
Cameron said:
That?s easy. Half of all women seeking abortions were actually using some form of birth control.
Hmm?
Poor Cam, still spinning….
Cameron,
Here’s the best way to get rid of teen pregnancy’s. Listen to Jason Evert’s live online talk to a Catholic High School…
http://www.pureloveclub.com/seminars/index.php?id=3
If you can’t listen to all of it I would highly recommend fast forwarding to 1:00 hour into the talk and listen to the next ten minutes.
Mike
Good job Bethany!
I am one of Hillary’s pro-choice constituants, and I think the “safe, legal, and rare” line is a great line. It describes the goal of the OB/GYN industry (which some mistakenly call the abortion industry) correctly.
I don’t know what the author has in mind when she writes: “It’s this sort of rhetoric, like her “safe, legal, and rare” line, that alienates pro-abortion constituents and actually damages the movement.”
The author means that the “safe, legal, and rare” line indicates there’s something wrong with abortion, which runs counter to the abortion industry’s propaganda that abortion is fine, great, even moral.
God, Hilary Clinton is such a fascist! If she comes to power, I’m moving to Scotland.
Why should it be rare? No one thinks emercency contraception, or condoms, or other things should be rare…they all have the same end, to prevent a baby from being born.
If you are pro-choice, please explain to me why you think abortion should be rare?
I wish someone would actually answer that question, Milehimama….I’ve been asking, along with many others here, that exact same question for a while now, and so far, no real answers provided from pro-choicers as to why it should be rare. Kind of odd.
more like safe, legal and rampant.