Posted on 09/12/2017 6:41:58 PM PDT by kevcol
Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded to a question about the controversy over pro-life Democratic candidates in a new interview by insisting that abortion is a "fundamental human right."
Clinton's comment came in an interview with the lifestyle magazine Refinery29 that was released concurrently with her new book, What Happened. Clinton's memoir covering the 2016 campaign has prompted negative reactions from prominent Democrats
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
In this world or next... they will meet their waterloo for doing such dastardly deeds to the unborn/innocent!
The right to murder an unborn child is a “fundamental human right”....got it.
Cankles is in a 1973 time-warp.
Slither away Hillary, you have been rejected.
“It’s a fundamental human right to kill humans!”
Er, ok.
These are some very sick people and if these NWO folks had the power they wanted, forced abortions would be happening everywhere.
Hillary loves killing, whether it’s babies, or Jews, or Buddhists, or political threats, or just anyone at random if she’s in a bad mood.
Too bad Hillary’s own mamma didn’t drive down to Planned Parenthood and perform that “right” on herself, this all could have been prevented
And why do we even need a term like “pro life”?
Are jurors on a murder case “pro life” because they put the a murderer in prison for ending someone’s life? Is the judge “pro life” for sentencing him?
Do they call firemen who rescue people in burning buildings “pro life”?
No. They’re just NORMAL human beings.
Would a fireman who blocked the front door so no one could get out be called “pro choice”?
It says so in the Bill of Rights: “The right of women to kill small human beings shall not be infringed.”
The unalienable right to life trumps the unalienable right to pursue sexual happiness without consequences.
So true.
I've pinged Askel5, with whom I don't think you overlapped here time-wise, because she was always right on this issue.
If so, then post birth abortion up to any age should be.
It’s a fundamental human right, but one that doesn’t apply to the younger 50% of the humans who go into abortion clinics. Not very fundamental, is it?
Disgraceful & completely illogical.
How can there be a basic human right that requires a medical procedure and the assistance of a medical professional? How can you have a right that requires someone else to violate their beliefs? This line of reasoning is an attempt to sanitize abortion into a natural right by ignoring the emotional context, the life of the fetus and the conscience of the MD/midwife. Not to mention the cost. Do we have the “right” to any othet item of healthcare? In a word no.
This is a tenet of feminism which is at its heart a willful denial of reality and of the rights of other people to focus on the self and victimology.
The world would be better off, especially the USA if Hillary and her ilk had been aborted. All those who favor/support abortion should have been. And if it could be accomplished ex-post-facto, the problem would soon be resolved.
That such a declaration comes from the mouth of a person who sought the Presidency of the United States of America is surreal and unbelievable, given that it deeply offends such a large portion of the citizenry.
Just who does this person believe she is? We know that she is committed to that movement which self-identifies as "Progressive," and that movement's economic ideas are Socialist by nature. Perhaps the following excerpt may explain why the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton insist on "population control." Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Protecting innocent little preborn babies between conception and birth is a fundamental human responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.