HILLARY Clinton’s sentimental distortions in Wednesday’s debate about women who make the “heartbreaking” decision to terminate the life of their late-term child because their own life is in danger is just the kind of thing hailed by these ghouls outside Trump Tower (above) protesting “hatred” of women. In the decadent United States of America, valuing the most important thing women do — bringing life into the world — is “hating” women. Hillary is a master at flattering women and presenting evil as good.

It is tragic when a woman becomes ill during pregnancy and needs treatment that may injure her unborn baby. If Hillary truly cared about families and children, as she so often maintains, she would argue for helping those in this situation to cope with the results and she would valorize their struggles. It is never necessary to abort a child to save a woman’s life. According to the Association of Pro-Life Physicians:

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim.  If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic.  But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life.  For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion.  Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion.  In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health.  The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child.  If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.

The Jewish writer Emily Bazelon got a “thrill” from Clinton’s remarks at the debate. Bazelon writes in The New York Times:

I’ll confess I felt a small thrill: More than at any big moment since the convention, Mrs. Clinton owned her feminism. She sounded like the first woman running for president, defending other women — our autonomy and our control of our own bodies.

If a woman wants to “control” her own body, she should never have sexual relations. Or get in a car. Or fly in a plane. Or eat. All women will someday die. They are not in control of their bodies, and never were.

More fact-checking on Hillary’s abortion remarks can be found here.

— Comments —

Paul C. writes:

It is truly insane to believe that anti-abortion laws restrict a woman’s control over her body.  There are countless ways a woman has control over her body. The gentle push against the man’s hand is the easiest.  Rejection of access to fourth base is available.  Sure it gets hot and heavy, but if the person is religious, he or she knows it is wrong; and all it takes is for one partner to stop.  The intense contact should be enough.  But somehow we go too far, rarely if we are religious.  After marriage, there are highly-effective Catholic family planning techniques for avoiding too many pregnancies that don’t use contraception or abortion.

This is not a condemnation of women who have chosen non-Catholic methods, but information.  Only Jesus is the arbiter.

As an attractive Catholic bachelor who has dated many times, I knew when to quit in 99.9% of the situations.  The few times were with women who knew the score such that I was not taking advantage of them.  But I knew that I would not abandon them had we had a child.  I would have offered marriage despite knowing them little.  If that were unacceptable, I would have been a devoted father.

This is evidence of the insanity of abortion.  Make the jackass support the woman and baby. If he is unwilling, put his butt in jail.  But no, the liberals need the votes of jackasses who want to abort.  Instead of adoption, these deluded people choose to kill.  I don’t get it.  Is it some kind of extreme selfishness?  If I can’t have my baby, nobody can?  Or maybe it is the weakness of women who fear that one day they might long to have their babies back?

Please follow and like us: