I got this from here. This quote is from Emily's List President Ellen Malcolm, about the groups support of Hillary for president, and her Pro-Choice stance:
"The time has come to elect Hillary Clinton to the presidency," she said. "The time has come to elect a president with her commitment to women and children. The time has come to elect a president who will protect a woman's rights, particularly their reproductive rights."
If that's not a contradiction, I don't know what is. How exactly do you have a "commitment to...children" and still want to protect women's "reproductive rights?" I'm just asking. Are you for protecting children, or not? It seems kinda hypocritical to me. As in, "I'm for protecting children, but not if they are in the womb." Unless you're in Europe, where infanticide is becoming more and more popular, but that's an entirely different topic.
And with the "world's most premature baby," who was born at 21 WEEKS and 6 days, doing great, it kinda makes the argument about when exactly life begins a little more tricky. When exactly is a "person" a "person" anyway? Is it now at 21 weeks and 6 days? What about 21 weeks and 5 days? What about 15 weeks? What about 1 day? What about 1 hour? What about 1 second?
And when exactly is "murder" considered "murder?" There are laws on the books that say you can be tried for 2 murders if you kill a pregnant mother. So how is that any different, aside for the obvious part about the mother not being killed, than terminating a pregnancy on purpose? Does it make any difference to the fetus? He/she dies either way. He/she didn't have any say in the matter. Neither did the pregnant mother that was killed, and both she and her baby have rights.......but only in this case I guess.
Sorry about my rant here, but I just read that article and it really hacked me off. Lord help us if Hillary wins the Presidency. And that's just one issue that this nation will be crippled with if she wins.
Keep on keepin' on.
No comments:
Post a Comment