As much as I detest HRC and as often as I've been critical of her, I will say she hit a home run on this issue for me, as a woman. When she gets it right, I feel it also deserves mentioning. Am still voting GREEN, but it makes a likely Clinton presidency a bit more tolerable for me. Od course, what she says and what she does is always up for grabs. Still, I give her credit for not backing down to Trump.
Trump's day of reckoning will not be with women. It will be with the male voters who supported him through the entire 2016 election cycle as soon as they realize that Trump did nothing to expand his base after his formal nomination, handing an easy win to Clinton.
Seeing how many of Trump's supporters are highly competent with firearms, he will need to expand the security crews protecting himself and his family.
Nasty is the end result for voting either Trump or Clinton.
Clean vote options are out there.
Poor old Donald. When he eats ice cream he probably dribbles it all over the front of his $2 thousand dollar shirt.
Warmongering, interventionist Hillary let he freak-flag fly last night with her "no-fly zone" remarks.
"We need no-fly zones in Syria," said Hillary, not understanding the consequences of what taking that action would likely mean. Or not caring if she does know, which is even worse.
What will Hillary do when the nasty Russian aircraft or Iranian fighter jets or Syrian airplanes fly into one of her "no-fly zones?" Either in error or on purpose.
How will Hillary deal with the drones flown by who knows whom that will come flying into her US backed "no-fly zones?"
Hillary is dangerous to all living things.
Trump's poor choice of words are meant for the unwashed masses. If instead of "nasty woman" he would have said "deplorable lady" it would have been quite acceptable.
If women and blacks voted in equal numbers for Hillary and for Trump....Trump would win the election going away.
Hillary will be elected on the strength of her female vote and her black vote.
Which is why she has used every trick in the book to expose Trump as the womanizer that he is and why she visits so many black churches.
When elected Hillary will have a very weak and narrow base of support.
Now let's all be adults here and not attack me for being a racist and a sexist. All I'm doing is presenting, as Joe Friday use to say, "Just the facts, man, just the facts."
Most important to a "Don," perhaps. Women's lives are pretty important to some of us.
Actually, the "partial-birth-abortion" ban that HRC voted against and SCOTUS ultimately upheld requires bans only the most humane, lowest risk (to the woman) procedure for late-term abortion and leaves doctors and women who must be rescued from life-threatening or nonviable pregnancies in the third trimester required to use a procedure more like what DJT flailed around describing (though of course it wouldn't be performed when delivery was imminent anyway). See RBG's fairly graphic dissent from the SCOTUS decision.
Indeed, it was DJT's ignorance that was most on display.
Perhaps what might "help" HRC is a brain enema?
Anyone who uses a phrase like "abortion supporter" clearly doesn't understand the issue at all. I have no interest in earning your attention.
DJT only supports women having abortions when those women are victims of his impregnation either while he is/was married of not. In other words, he is only for it if he benefits in some way and against it when he does not (or when his pro-life wingnut base rants on about preventing women from having a CHOICE.). He is not running for president, he just wants to be crowned "King."
And to all who compare HRC to Trump, ignorance must be blissful.
She is a nasty woman. Her record of corruption speaks for itself!
My sincerest best wishes to you for taking the time to answer in such depth. Please do not imagine that I am telling anyone "who gets to live and the other not". We can both agree that Nature plays rather a crucial role in the whole process. However, when an external agent causes the mother to abort, then such abortion is not a natural procedure, but an un-natural interference i.e. someone has decided to decide "who gets to live and the other not". I don't think that any of us has that "right" - no matter what man-made law may claim.
The question of late term abortions is indeed awful, and if indeed it is an either/or mother/baby decision, no-one would condemn another for choosing life for themselves. I am a father of 3 daughters, the first of whom could well have ended as a statistic as I had already quit the relationship before I knew of the pregnancy. The moment I heard, I dropped my own selfish desires and acted as my conscience dictated. Perhaps the answer to true fulfillment in life is to put others first, and self last?
Finally, I doubt whether I can claim ownership of any "beings" - not even my own children. Nobody owns anyone else. I do not make the laws, nor am I empowered to "judge"another (as Pope Francis said "Who am I to judge?". Nor can I act against my conscience, no matter what any lawful or unlawful command is made. I don't pretend to know a zygote from a fetus - though both you and I were once those. However, even a child knows right from wrong. In my book, it is wrong to wilfully hurt another. And if my words here have caused you hurt, then my profound apologies.
Peace to you.
If you'd ever been pregnant, you might understand. I do not choose to expose myself to any more of your arrogant ignorance.
I have no doubt that you are constitutionally 100% correct and I have no argument with you on the question of legality. You will recall that laws do change and are frequently repealed i.e. the law is a fickle and ephemeral abstraction. My cousin is married to a doctor - born premature, the youngest child to survive. Viability too is an abstract construct because since his birth, the survivability keeps getting younger. So I think the concept (of "viability") is a poor foundation for any law. My instinct is that if the pregnancy is healthy, that a child would emerge at the end of 9 months, then Human Rights must apply to that child - yea from conception. If we are to introduce hurdles like wealth, gender, eye colour, physique etc. then we are in the realm of Nazi eugenics. Once Human Life becomes commodified, and materialsim is the prevailing philosophy, then God help us all.
Consider Emile Weaver, the college student recently sentenced to life in prison for aborting her unwanted child a little too late -- a couple hours after birth. Do you think that was okay? If not, why should killing it a few hours earlier (just before birth) have been okay? It's the same baby.
If the Pro-lifers were really serious about how precious life really is they would be pro-active in tackling the underlying problem of not only unwanted children (for whatever reason) but also being involved in the enormous problem of world over population and lack of good solid sex education. They appear to be more concerned with adding to any and every discussion and attempts to insure the rights of the unborn children but do not have much influence once the child is born. Abstinence Only is such an outdated program of sex education that it is a joke. Teaching good, solid scientific sex education is somehow offensive to these 'holier than thou' pro-lifers. If they do not want children then by all means do not have them
...Specifically, why should the mother's desire for the baby, or whether she considers it a child vs inanimate flesh, play any role in justifying a late- term abortion, since these things obviously play no role in justifying a very-late (post birth) abortion?
Thanks, William. I had not heard of this case. I fully agree with Matt Walsh in the above article.