Hm, Hillary opposes sex selection abortions?
From the New York Times, August 18:
Q: Many of the countries where the abuses against women are most prevalent are also countries that have a vital strategic importance to the United States: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India. How can you aggressively advocate for women without jeopardizing those strategic relationships?…
Clinton: Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high, and unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy. And those are deeply set attitudes. But at the governmental level, there is a great deal of openness and commitment that I am seeing….
This is problematic for hardcore pro-aborts, because Hillary is admitting preborns are distinct and separate human beings and also that some abortions are wrong.
Can’t find any pro-abort blog taking note of this traitorism.
[HT: reader Scott, photo via the NYT]
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.
It’s ironic, therefore doubtful, that Hillary’s concerned about female infanticide at all. In the long run, fewer girls means lower reproduction levels, fewer people to destroy our planet’s natural resources. That’s the whole point of the liberal pro-abort agenda.
From the NYT article, Hillary says:
“A woman who is safe enough in her own life to invest in her children and see them go to school is not going to have as many children. The resource battles over water and land will be diminished. This is all connected. And it’s an issue of how we take hard power and soft power, so called, and use it to advance not just American ends but, in advancing global progress, we are making the world safer for our own children.”
The feminists who fought so hard for abortion should have heeded my favorite saying:
When the gods want to punish (wo)man they answer their prayers so………be very careful what you wish for.
Hillary says: “Obviously, there’s work to be done in both India and China, because the infanticide rate of girl babies is still overwhelmingly high.”
How high is too high? Hillary may not be aware that sex-selection abortion has been documented here in USA, based on 2000 census:
Almond D, Edlund L.
Son-biased sex ratios in the 2000 United States Census.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2008 Apr 15;105(15):5681-2.
We document male-biased sex ratios among U.S.-born children of Chinese, Korean, and Asian Indian parents in the 2000 U.S. Census. This male bias is particularly evident for third children: If there was no previous son, sons outnumbered daughters by 50%. By contrast, the sex ratios of eldest and younger children with an older brother were both within the range of the biologically normal, as were White offspring sex ratios (irrespective of the elder siblings’ sex). We interpret the found deviation in favor of sons to be evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage.
PMID: 18378890
Hillary: you can use all the sneaky moves you want to twist the truth or cover up evidence, but the U.S. census for 2000 is out there for anyone to look over. and we are about to conduct the 2010 census – better tell Obama that ACORN will need to under-sample certain Asian-Americans.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-obtains-obama-commerce-department-documents-detailing-acorn-partnership
In this line: will Hillary advocate for a federal law on gendercide, similar to Oklahoma’s 2009 law mandating that abortion for reason of sex-selection is not acceptable (HB 1595)?
I believe Serge of the LTI blog calls this “cultural cognitive dissonance.” At least SoMG was consistent on this point…
“Hillary opposes sex selection abortions?”
————————————————-
What ‘traitorism’?
Hillary is only opposed if the human embryo/fetus being killed is a female.
If there were some genetic testing that would identify which female human embryo/fetus were going to be predisposed toward femininity and motherhood, then Hillary would probably look the other way while those little nuisances were disposed of quietly.
Hillary would probably at least be silent on forced abortions if the human embryo/fetuses were male.
Does the term ‘man hater’ resonate when you close your eyes and picture Hillary.
God knows Bill ‘I smoked pot but I did not inhale, but ms Lewinsky did’ Clinton has given Hillary ample cause to hate some men.
yor bro ken
What gives Hillary and the feminists any more right than anyone else to tell these women they should not abort a baby because its female or to judge the validity of their reasons for aborting a female? Didn’t you ladies argue a woman’s decision should never be questioned? That women should be trusted? So what’s the issue here?
Sorry feminists and Hillary, but you can’t have it both ways. You wanted freedom of “choice” and the gods answered your prayer(just an expression folks, no religious connotation).
Hi Ken,
Don’t you recall that Clinton never had sex with “that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”. Well, THAT wasn’t really sex. That argument would sure get a lot of straying husbands and boyfriends off the hook!
Hillary will be excused for a ‘Freudian slip of the forked tongue.
SoS Clinton was so occupied with deciding which ‘best face’ to put on this issue that she lost focus and this little ‘pre-modernist regressive’ attitude, long surpressed, bolted for freedom at the first sign of daylight like a bum on a bologna sandwich or a liberal on a new tax (forgive me for the redundancy).
The high priestesses of feminism, in deferrence to ms Rodham-Clintons many years of sacrifice remaining married to her misogynist, skirt chasing husband in order to maintain access to the otherwise unavailable reins of power, have decreed Hillary’s penace will be to recite 100 Hail Abzugs and 100 Our mothers and not shave the body part of her choice for 90 days, but not wanting to cause her more shame than she can bear/bare Hillary will be allowed to eschew the wearing of sleevless garments, skirts and thong bikinis.
And men everywhere, even atheist and agnostics, said out loud, “Thank God!” (Not the least of whom was Slick Willy.)
yor bro ken
Mary,
My wife would never buy that bit of bovine scatulation and I doubt Bill’s wife did either.
The sad part to me is not that Hillary subjected America to several more years of the embarassment of a boorish brute for President, but that she subordingated her own daughters emotional well being and best interests to her unbridled thirst for power.
If Hillary had moved out of the White House when Bill could no longer avoid the truth, Slick Willy would have soon followed.
Of course we would have inherited algore and then Bush may not have been able to overcome the inherent advantages of an incumbent president in the next election.
Reagan did it but ‘W’ is no Ronald Reagan.
yor bro ken
Hello Mary,
I am glad to see you are still gracing us insightful commentary.
I envy your ability to recall dates and times and events with such accuracy.
I just remember things in a general sense. Often the minutiae of details escapes my recollection.
That is not to admit my being wrong, though I do admit to being wrong in a detail occasionally, but that does not alter the aggregate truth of what I write.
You howvever are fastidioulsy correct. You accurcacy ratings must be up there in the Limbaugh range.
You go girl! You gots ‘it’!
How is life going for you these days on a personal level. Still enjoying your work and your off the field activities?
yor bro ken
Hillary will say whatever she believes will best serve her ambitions.
She is just as “any time, anywhere, for any reason or no reason” on abortion as any on the radical fringe.
If a bill banning sex selection abortion came up when she was in the senate she would have voted against it claiming the “slippery slope” argument.
Blocking any restrictions makes them feel like they ensuring “reproductive services” to poor minority neighborhoods, when what is really happening would be called genocide of it happened in any other country.
It allows her to demand that federal funds go to providing “reproductive services” in Africa. That would be government funded genocide.
Hillary is a power hungry politician forst and always.
I think that this could be a step forward(s?). Maybe she has no more desire to abandon her conscience. There’s good and evil in everyone; perhaps the good in her when it comes to children’s rights is finally starting to show.
In any case, I would be happy if those opposed to children’s rights would finally acknowledge that perhaps slaughtering girls by the- what?- thousands? millions? won’t fix the problems that women face. They could try- you know- respecting women as people. That might work.
But if Hillary Clinton is going to say something, hopefully it will encourage more of them to care about misogyny. I have faith that the good will shine through. :)
All of a sudden it is “unfortunate” that women are simply exercising their right to choose?
Wonder where she is coming up with this whole “girl children” terminology? I thought we were talking about fetuses all this time?
Sheesh Hilary, you’re starting to sound so anti-choice.
Ha! good one Bethany.
I suppose the pro-choice rhetoric would be that the choice should be made after great consideration and not for trivial reasons.
Which, of course, is complete bull-honkey if what’s growing in you is in point of fact a mass of tissues and not a human being at all (I’m not conceding ANYTHING here-it’s all bs).
It’s like PBHO claiming that abortion is a ‘difficult decision’ and turning it into an issue that should be made by the woman and her pastor and doctors. Indicating that abortion is difficult sounds great at first, but is counter-productive to their ’cause’ in the long-run.
I believe it’s actually contributing to their falling numbers that they’re conceding the brevity abortion, at least in part. Of course, they could hardly ignore it, when there are so many broken post-abortive women out there crying out for help.
“unfortunately…abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy.” HRC
Hey Hillary- I
s it still unfortunate if women abort “girl children” because
…they have a holiday planned and simply don’t want to “ruin” their bikini body by carrying a daughter?
…a daughter would mean one of their kids would simply have to share a bedroom?
…another daughter would mean needing to simply trade their car in for a mini-van?
…their daughter would simply be born under the wrong star sign?
…after they tried to conceive this daughter, the boyfriend simply got cold feet?
…a daughter would simply require mom to defer her studies for a semester (while all her medical bills were being paid for her)?
…mom simply feels like she’s “not ready to have a daughter” (at 26, married, home owner, no major issues)?
…mom simply thinks aborting her daughter would be easier to deal with than another miscarriage, because at least she gets to choose this time?
…mom simply chose to have a one-night stand with another man and (irrationally, according to medical science) fears her daughter may not be her husband’s?
In which of these situations did an innocent girl child “unfortunately” have to die? Would it have mattered less if these children were boys? What if it was twin girls- was it twice as bad? Is it only “unfortunate” when a baby girl dies simply because she was a baby girl and not because of any of these other petty, selfish, or insane so-called reasons?
It’s so refreshing to hear Hillary admit that sex-selection abortions often involve “girl children” but so sickening to be reminded how contradictory the feminist pro-abortion mentality has to be.
Hi Ken 6:12PM
Not too many wives would!
What I especially recall is how people fell all over themselves to explain and defend Clinton’s actions. Sociopaths have that amazing power over people, to make themselves look like the REAL victim and to have people falling all over themselves to explain and understand them.
Then, Clinton had to take a weeklong vacation with Hillary! I’m sure a week with the devil in hell would have been preferable.
Thank you for your kind words. They are appreciated. The thing is my short term memory is bad. I couldn’t tell you what I did yesterday.
Everything is fine with me, thank you for asking. I’m blessed to have a profession I just love and I keep on scuba diving whenever I can!
I hope all is well with you and your as well.
Hi Bethany, 10:15PM
An excellent point indeed. Sorry ladies, you can’t have it both ways. You wanted women to have the absolute right to abort for any reason they saw fit and they have it. Can’t say as I envy the position Hillary and the feminists find themselves in, but then the gods only granted THEIR wish.
Hi Michelle,
I saw who I think was Patricia Ireland from NOW on Bill O’Reilly, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but she was adamant that Tiller’s patients did not have late term abortions for the frivulous reasons a prominent psychiatrist reviewing patient records said they did.
It never happens, this woman huffed and puffed.
O’Reilly asked her how she knew this for a fact and why on earth would the psychiatrist lie?
Did she review the records?
Why, yes she had. O’Reilly didn’t go after this like he should have.
This woman is either a colossol liar or she and Tiller had violated federal law.
I’m pretty positive Hillary’s comments are more reflective on her position on women’s rights than abortion. If someone had elected to abort a boy because girls are just so gosh-darn wonderfuler, I doubt she’d have made such a comment.
there’s a difference between opposing gender selection abortions and wanting them illegal.
The pro-choice side insists that the decision to abort should be left between the woman and the doctor. So why should an outsider, such as Hillary, cast judgment on the woman’s legal, and PRIVATE decision?
Which is it, Hillary, a private decision or public policy?
Hal,
Why should Hillary oppose gender selection abortion any more than she does abortions for other reasons? The reason is irrelevant, this is a fetus, period. The woman can abort for any reason she sees fit.
Can’t have it both ways.
Seriously, Hal?
Then how do you propose we stop gender selection abortions?
Perhaps cultures that have valued boys over girls for thousands of years will be convinced by a “Forget the dowry- you really want a daughter, dontcha?” campaign. It would have to include a lapel ribbon to make us feel like we’re really doing something to help.
And how about some scientific research into methods for increasing your chance of conceiving a boy? Wouldn’t that stop those “unfortunate” abortions if we could prevent the girl babies from being conceived in the first place?
Maybe we only allow it SOME of the time- say if you already have three girls and are really hoping for a boy, then it’s ok- we understand the difficult circumstance you’re in, but two girls, well, hey, that’s not serious enough. That would surely save a few.
I’m searching for some common ground here- because it sounds like we both want less dead baby girls…what ideas do you have since legal avenues are apparently out of the question?
Prayer to End Abortion
Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,
And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.
I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion,
Yet I rejoice that you have conquered death
by the Resurrection of Your Son.
I am ready to do my part in ending abortion.
Today I commit myself
Never to be silent,
Never to be passive,
Never to be forgetful of the unborn.
I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement,
And never to stop defending life
Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,
And our nation once again becomes
A nation with liberty and justice
Not just for some, but for all.
Through Christ our Lord. Amen!
(Priests for Life.org)
Hal,
Do you want to end gender selection abortion?
there’s a difference between opposing gender selection abortions and wanting them illegal.
So do you oppose sex selection abortions? And if so, why?
Posted by: Vannah at August 25, 2009 9:39 PM
“Maybe she has no more desire to abandon her conscience.”
————————————————–
Conscience? CONSCIENCE? She don’t need no stinkin’ conscience!
A functioning conscience would be a hindrance, though mircroscopically tiny, compared to her political ambitions.
yor bro ken
So do you oppose sex selection abortions? And if so, why?
Posted by: Bethany at August 26, 2009 4:37 PM
Good question. I do oppose sex selection abortions. Under my personal morality, which I don’t want to impose by government prohibition, it is wrong to prefer a female child over a male child. That’s much different then not wanting a child at all.
Hal,
A second class woman living in a country where male children are coveted and female children are a burden may beg to differ.
An Indian doctor put it much more eloquently. He saw sex selection abortion as very desirable and economical, not to mention a way to curb overpopulation. This way, a woman did not “have” to give birth to “many undesirable females” before having the much coveted male child.
I admit Hal, one can’t envy the feminists the quandry they find themselves in.
When the gods want to punish (wo)man they answer their prayers………
Well, every woman should make the choice for herself I guess. I am troubled by a world where female children are considered a burden. I would hope that troubles all of us.
Well, every woman should make the choice for herself I guess. I am troubled by a world where female children are considered a burden. I would hope that troubles all of us.
Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2009 2:59 PM
I think you mean a greater burden, Hal, considering that abortion only exists under the premise that all children are burdens.
Good question. I do oppose sex selection abortions. Under my personal morality, which I don’t want to impose by government prohibition, it is wrong to prefer a female child over a male child. That’s much different then not wanting a child at all.
Why is it wrong to prefer one over the other, Hal? Is it also wrong, in your personal opinion, to prefer a healthy baby to an unhealthy baby?
If not, why not?
If so, why so?
Well, every woman should make the choice for herself I guess. I am troubled by a world where female children are considered a burden. I would hope that troubles all of us.
This makes no sense to me, considering your position on the issue. How can this really trouble you?
Aren’t you troubled by a world where any child, male or female, is considered a burden? If not, how can you rationalize your position?
All children are a burden to some extent, that’s for sure. If you want a child, you’re accepting that burden. If you only want a male child,you’re saying a girl is a greater burden, and that makes no sense to me (although it may be true in other cultures).
Everyone would prefer a healthy baby to an unhealthy baby, but I think your point is would it be immoral to abort because you think your baby has a health problem. That, I suppose, would depend on a lot of factors, which the parents would be in the best position to evaluate.
Hal, it seems that you are changing your stance now that I’ve brought these questions to you.
You’ve from from “morally opposed” to simply “confused” by sex selection in just a couple of posts…and now you’re saying that it is possible that in some cultures it is TRUE that girls actually ARE less valuable than boys – that clearly contradicts what you first said, which was that it should trouble us all that girls are valued less highly than boys, and that it is morally wrong in your opinion.
How can it be true that girls are less valuable in some cultures, but at the same time, that same idea that girls are less valuable be morally wrong and “troubling”?
(The caps weren’t for shouting, just emphasis.)
Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2009 2:59 PM
“I am troubled by a world where female children are considered a burden. I would hope that troubles all of us.”
————————————————-
Hal,
I am troubled where children, regardless of their stage of development or gender are considered less human if they are not wanted, for whatever reason.
I hope that burden troubles you. It does me.
yor bro ken
Hal,
There are aspects of children which are burdensome. That said, children themselves are a blessing and it is a great sadness in our world that this has been forgotten.
It is the attitude of children as a burden which results in inattentive parents, the prevalence of daycare centers… even, to some extent, the rising rate of divorce. Certainly the thousands dead every day!
Children are not a burden or a problem, nor are they a right. Children are a gift, a blessing, a privilege and a responsibility.
And until we recognize that, we are lost.
Maryrose, you write some of the most beautiful posts. And so very true.
The baby I’m carrying right now is a blessing, for sure.
Why, thank you, Bethany! I’ve enjoyed more than a few of your posts, myself :)
I wish I could give my experiences growing up to everyone in the world. Let them see just how much of a blessing EVERY child is! And how horrific it is to call them ‘burdens’.
Hal,
Why should Hillary oppose gender selection abortion any more than she does abortions for other reasons? The reason is irrelevant, this is a fetus, period. The woman can abort for any reason she sees fit.
Can’t have it both ways.
Posted by: Mary at August 26, 2009 10:28 AM
Hal, and Hillary, are not having it both ways. The point of feminist objection to sex selection abortions is that the woman is NOT making her own free choice regarding whether to carry to term. She is being pressured by cultural forces that tell her that girls are of lesser value. She is being pressured by cultural forces that tell her that she herself is of lesser value, and that she should bend her will and her reproductive capabilities towards producing only valuable babies, i.e., boys. It’s hardly a free choice.
Then how about having the law protect the right to live of everyone-the mother, her unborn daughter especially-to help alleviate some of this pressure, Penny Dreadful?
You do realize that a good portion of abortions occur because it’s legal, and the partners of many women see it as an easy out for them, so they pressure their significant other to abort, no matter WHAT the gender is? There are cultural forces telling women what a burden a baby is and how much a baby will ruin her life (have you ever said such a thing?) no matter what the gender, all of the time! I wouldn’t say “choice” on the whole is “a free choice”.
Penny Dreadful, America is full of women who are under cultural pressure to abort. Over 64 percent of women today in America who have abortions are coerced. Where is the “free choice” in that? http://www.unchoice.info
Xalisae and Bethany –
I don’t deny that women are sometimes pressured into aborting here. I think that is also wrong, wrong, wrong.
I don’t believe that any woman anywhere at any time should be coerced into either aborting or bearing against her will. It’s simply not anyone else’s business, and it absolutely violates the autonomy of women.
Roughly half of all aborted human beings who have their right to live gruesomely taken away from them are female. THAT absolutely violates the autonomy of THOSE women.
Roughly half of all aborted human beings who have their right to live gruesomely taken away from them are female. THAT absolutely violates the autonomy of THOSE women.
Posted by: xalisae at August 30, 2009 9:34 PM
Well spoken!
Or well written, I suppose :)
Very well said, Xalisae.
Thanks, guys. I’m starting a blog, because I like to write and I need income. Let’s see if I can be half as coherent as Perez Hilton. XD
X,
When you have it up and running, I’d love to see a link posted :)
I did it. >_