Considering that “pro-life” in all practicality means “pro-birth” I have a hard time understanding such a position.
I wish we could stop talking about this as abortion rights. This is about right to privacy period!!!
No, Hillary. It’s not a “person”.
“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” she said Sunday
The unborn person?! Could she dog-whistle any more loudly to the anti-choice crowd?
This strikes me of a piece with her remark about the Reagans´ helping America understand AIDS, i.e., that it´s a calculated bit of triangulation that her campaign thinks has a bigger upside than the incredulousness and any backlash that it will invoke in her supporters.
I agree with Clinton. Consider the word: “Choice.”
That means that it’s up to a woman to make choices about her reproductive life. She can choose to have as many children as her fertility and timely intercourse allow, or employ birth control (or even abstinence) to have no children, or choose to support abortion rights and perhaps even choose one or more abortions for herself, or choose to eschew abortion rights for herself and for all women.
I happen to support full abortion rights for all women. But that’s my choice. Other women may choose otherwise, and urge others to never abort under any circumstances. That’s their choice. The only problem I have is when any woman (or man) tries to force their beliefs on others.
Jesus wept.
Do you want to consider ¨unborn person¨ while you´re at it? Do you agree that the fetus is an unborn person? I know Ted Cruz does.
Oh jeez, “unborn person”???
It’s not a person until it’s born. And it’s just a fetus until it can survive on its own. Hillary, stop adopting the other side’s way of framing things.
And sorry, but a woman who would deny ME the right to control my own body and my own reproductive system isn’t a feminist.
I know lots of pro-choice women who would never choose abortion for themselves. They’re still pro-choice though because they don’t believe in imposing that choice on anyone else.
Yes, but that’s my problem. Pro-lifers aren’t taking that position for themselves, they want to make it the law of the land for EVERYONE.
Don’t be fooled, ever.
Thanks for helping the GOTP write an attack ad.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” - F. Scott Fitzgerald
These comments come after Clinton referred to a fetus in an interview as an unborn “person,” a word choice that angered some abortion rights activists.
Here’s one thing none of these write-ups have much mentioned in particular…It was Chuck Toady Todd that brought up the idea of the “unborn child”, not “unborn fetus” when he asked Clinton in the first place. Odd that he did that, but not so odd that she referred back to him in a language he seemed more comfortable with discussing on his terms. It was a mistake to use his frame of reference however, since he was goading her for the all important soundbite imo.
From a small section of the transcript on MtP yesterday in which she was interviewed:
CHUCK TODD:
When, or if, does an unborn child have constitutional rights?
HILLARY CLINTON:
Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights. Now, that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can, in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.
It doesn’t mean that you don’t do everything possible to try to fulfill your obligations. But it does not include sacrificing the woman’s right to make decisions. And I think that’s an important distinction, that under Roe v. Wade we’ve had enshrined under our Constitution.
A little context goes a long way.
Btw, the NYT First Draft write-up of this account manages to leave that part out as well. She wasn’t responding in a vacuum. She had been asked a very specific question that already presumed the unborn was already considered a “child” and not a fetus.
“Unborn person” was an unfortunate choice of words, but I don’t really fault her for saying one can be both a feminist and “pro-life,” though ideally she could have noted that you can also be both “pro-life” in the sense of being against abortion personally, while still being “pro-choice.”. It’s when you’re against giving women the choice that I have trouble with such a person being described as a “feminist.”.
Of course in common usage “pro-life” is generally used to mean anti-choice, but I have known Catholic women who consider themselves both very strongly “pro-life” personally, but still entirely “pro-choice” in terms of thinking it should be up to the woman, and I don’t have a problem with that, in fact I think that attitude should be encouraged among folks who have personal / religious objections to abortion. So to say that women in that category shouldn’t be able to call themselves “feminists” would be needlessly picking a fight in a counterproductive way.
But I can’t help but suspect that if Bernie had said this many Hillary supporters would be in full meltdown mode, accusing him of being anti-feminist and courting right wingers and so on. So perhaps an opportunity to recognize nuance and avoid piling on at apparent “gaffes” that could be spun into outrage/ faux-rage, but really don’t call for such a response.
Reading the whole paragraph here I almost wonder whether it was a slip of the tongue. But I do remember from the 80s that there were “pro-life” feminists who believed that because woman and nature blah blah blah, just the way that there were lesbian separatist feminists, radical-communist feminists…
Hillary is whip-smart but honestly she is kind of a shitty politician (I think she was acknowledging this with her “I’m not a natural politician” comments a month or so ago - she doesn’t have the instincts her husband, or Obama has, and has to work to compensate for that). She commits a new, innovative type of unforced error every few weeks.
I think people are being narrow-minded here. I am a pro-choice feminist but I think it is possible to be a pro-life feminist. First of all, pro-life can mean that you do not believe anyone should have abortions even if you believe the law should permit them. I don’t think that’s a fatuous position. I don’t think anyone should smoke but I think smoking should be legal. I think that makes me anti-smoking (or pro-nonsmoking). Second, even if what one means by pro-life is that you believe abortion should be illegal – which I grant is usually what one means – I don’t think it is necessarily inconsistent with feminism. Being pro-life is usually a moral choice reflected in a view about when life begins and what its value is. Of course, it is true that denying women that choice fosters inequality and so is in tension with feminism, but the same would be true of denying women the choice of murdering their born children. I gather we all think feminists are allowed to believe that women should be denied that choice. To be clear, I don’t think murdering a child and aborting a fetus are morally equivalent, but the reason I hold that view has nothing to do with whether I am a feminist. That’s my point.
Hillary is far more conservative than some suspect. That is why that damned socialist from where? is pissing her off so much. Forcing her to the center or even left is ruining her chances (in her mind).
That is a stretch calling her a conservative for that remark especially out of contest. Honestly I am so tired of the nit-picking of every thing she says trying to read something into it. Her position on women’s rights and a woman’s right to choose is set in stone
You mean like the Reagans ignored AIDS, but also taught Americans all about it? That sort of first-rate intelligence?
Look, fd: HRC is a lawyer. I am certain that she is familiar with all the personhood amendments floating around the country. The simplest explanation is that she knew exactly what she was saying, and was pandering.