Is Hillary Clinton's Pro-Choice policy really aimed at defending women's rights?

Hello, long time not entering the forum... But now I want to share a piece I've seen on USMessageBoard... It's interesting. However I'm not a committed Pro-Lifer, I think this piece illustrates the very cynicism and hypocrisy that we should eliminate from the practice of our political establishment.

One of the USMessageboard users wrote: "Do you remember how she "defended" female staff while being Walmart board member? Women at Walmart were paid less than men in every position, and advanced into management at lower rates - even though their performance reviews were higher. While Clinton's presence on the board helped to make the company look like a better place for women, there is no evidence that she took any measures as a board member to address Walmart's systemic sexism.
Or have female Americans had any benefits from her opposition to Medicare for All? Single-payer health care was the only system in which health care supposed to be independent of employment or marriage, both critical considerations for women. It was Hillary who leave us without it.
Finally, she (well, indirectly) threatens women's right to motherhood. She'd better create more opportunities for single mothers than advocate abortions!
And yes, she simply makes use of her husband. There's no honor in this for a woman."

I generally agree with this point of view. But your opinions would be highly appreciated! Would you like to discuss it?

Perhaps the first child-killer President in the USA​

Hillary Clinton always called herself a feminist, and now (as opposed to the 2008 election campaign) she makes extensive use of voters' false pride (1) by offering them to contribute to participate in would be historical event – the election of the first female US president.

At the same time, you need to be aware of reasons why the former First Lady is so focused on the women's question, and what are her aims in this matter. First of all, the probable cause of it all is the absence or distortion of paternal love in her childhood. For example, Carl Bernstein in his biography of Hillary, "A Woman in Charge: the Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton," wrote (2) that her father used to regularly abuse and humiliate her mother and had established strict physical discipline in their home. Perhaps, it is this distorted vision of traditional values as mere supremacy and authority that made Hillary Clinton a man-hater, if not even a misanthropist.

Well, June 10, 2016 the main US presidential candidate from the Democratic Party said (3) that in the case of victory she would defend the right of women to abortion and public funding (4) of the procedure. Thus, her promises go further than to aimlessly turn pregnant women and doctors into killers, she is going to make all taxpayers abetting in this crime.

Alongside with that, a possible "mistress" of the Oval Office is fully aware that "religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed" (5) in order to accommodate abortions. Doing so she will destroy the very basis of our society! Moreover, Clinton is committed to deliver the fate of next generations into the hands of organ-traffickers – particularly into the hands of her sponsors (6) from Planned Parenthood.

While expressing her pride (7) for working with Planned Parenthood and StemExpress, happy mother Hilary could not be unaware of allegations against them for illegal and inhumane trafficking of embryos (. What is more, she supported (9) them against "unjust attacks"! In exchange for this, CEO of StemExpress Cate Dyer gave the former First Lady not only financial assistance, but also an explicit public support (10). And after that Clinton is trying to convince Americans that her feminism is "moderate" and traditional values are of great importance for her! How naive is that? Nonetheless, a lot of (11) media publications (12) seem to be issued with such an unattainable goal!

Clinton's position on abortions is far from common sense, and it seems like it never was supposed to be reasonable. It is merely a result of warped spirituality, mental depravity and even unhealthy subconscious aspirations. And all these diseases are still feeding it. That is why the former First Lady who is shown to be an example of humanity and progressiveness, fails to hear biologists (13) saying that by 20 weeks after fertilization unborn babies are capable of feeling pain. Yes, when the unborn child in a womb is divided into parts – it hurts them! Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton attacked bill against cruel late-term abortions (14) and other proposed legislative measures (15) dealing with unborn pain, dismemberment abortions, informed consent, webcam abortions, parental involvement, etc.!

Did a feminist Hillary Clinton ever think how many girls she had depraved and sold into slavery to sin or pimps by her pandering to irresponsible behavior? How many girls – the very those who "matter to economic and political progress around the world" (16), might have a chance "to work and earn as full and equal partners in society" and thus lead the country to prosperity, – haven't been born because of her?

Here are links from the original post:

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uY7gLZDmn4
2) https://www.salon.com/2016/01/27/ca..._men_first_feminism_may_prove_costly_in_2016/
3) http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...on-rights-if-elected/articleshow/52698452.cms
4) http://www.lifenews.com/2016/01/15/...nd-even-more-tax-money-to-planned-parenthood/
5) http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...e-be-changed-accommodate-abortion-joel-gehrke
6) http://freebeacon.com/politics/planned-parenthood-pours-cash-to-clinton/
7) http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...clinton-defends-planned-parenthood-amid-video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ
9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq1_WjeNOCM
10) http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/25/...clinton-shes-getting-elected-its-a-done-deal/
11) http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto..._campaign_speech_it_s_all_about_feminism.html
12) http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clintons-feminist-family-values/
13) http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/13/...l-to-protect-babies-from-late-term-abortions/
14) http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/13/...l-to-protect-babies-from-late-term-abortions/
15) http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/242001-hillary-hits-back-against-gop-abortion-bill
16) http://www.famous-speeches-and-spee...-speeches-by-women/hillary-clinton-speech.htm

 

What a gigantic load of crap !

You lost all credibility with your bolded : ""Perhaps the first child-killer President in the USA""


NO presidential candidate has promoted or advocated killing children....so your words are not only ignorant but just plain flamebaiting crap.


And the rest of your Anti-Hillary rant has so much wrong with it it's almost like a piece from "Onion" !


Thank you for the ""Obviously Anti-Choicers are Desperate" post of the day ..........





And I see your "go to" website is "lifesitenews"....known in this forum as LIEsitenews......

 

Please don't spam for other forums. I believe it is against the rules.

 

The OP (opening post) is

 

HC is an AMAZING woman and could make a good President.
.
. . . . HC could announcing a plan to end the {female v. Fetus} debate by proposing a Constitutional Amendment granting the fundamental, individual, human right to abort gestation till a Fetus heartbeat develops or 11-weeks have passed. (with exceptions)
.
. . . . Pregnancy tests and the abortaficients, if needed, could then be billed to Medicaid so no State or county could prohibit this. Saw more of HC than most besides BC did at one time. HC was thin, progressive, and artsy and far more intellectual than BC. HC controlled BC quietly behind the scenes.
.
. . . . HC could also include modification of the 2nd to allow the general "Militia's" or Sheriffs to require owner safety-checks with probable-cause and allow owning M16's or any other personal weapon.
.
DT is doing his best to make sure HC wins.

The OP was hard to follow and was pro-choice spam IMHO.

 

Far to many debunked things in that post, and using lifesitenews as a source is as about a reliable as using muslim,.com to explain Christianity.

 

What's ironic?


The OP is going to vote for a guy who said he was "very pro-choice" just a few years ago...

and who PRAISED Planned Parenthood at a Republican Primary debate THIS YEAR.

 

Well, could you name these "debunked things", please? Honestly, I don't know much about lifesitenews. And I've paid attention to other sources mentioned in this piece.

 

DJT is nothing but a HRC supporter welding his legacy to WJC and HRC.
I believe there is absolutely no chance anyone but HRC will be the U.S. President in 2017.
DJT could not buy an election but was able to choose the next U.S. President.

The DJT donations did help HRC but destroying the GOP was a donation beyond measure.

It IS a fundamental, human right to abort for 12 weeks and this is free already in France.
The U.S. will soon learn to accept this.

 

This whole forum is filled with ridiculous claims by Anti-Choicers citing LIEsiteNews as their source...it's anti-abortion, anti-women's rights site.

 

This asserts that the already debunked videos of The Center for Medical Progress are valid, when all the evidence and investigations shows that PP had not violated any laws. - http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

There is basically zero evidence to show that a 20 week fetus feels pain - http://scienceprogress.org/2013/04/navigating-the-junk-science-of-fetal-pain/

The rest of it is just another partisan attack written to misrepresent and distort.

 

And what about Hillary Clinton? Is she really pro-women's rights politician? Did she lift a single finger to defend female staff while being Walmart board member? Women at Walmart were paid less than men in every position at that time, and advanced into management at lower rates - even though their performance reviews were higher. While Clinton's presence on the board helped to make the company look like a better place for women, she even didn't try to address the Walmart's systemic sexism.

Whose interests she served while opposing Medicare for All? Did she improve availability of health care for female Americans by doing so? Single-payer health care was the only system in which health care supposed to be independent of employment or marriage, both critical considerations for women.

 

not here to defend HC, but the article you cited is a very, very one sided view. HC went into Walmart as the ONLY female board member, she face a very conservative laden board with little to no interest in promoting female rights, to assert that a single female in such a position should have forced through changes is pretty ridiculous . .though not for lack of trying on her part, by her third board meeting Mrs. Clinton had announced “that you can expect me to push on issues for women. You know that. I have a reputation of trying to improve the status of women generally, and I will do it here.” By the late 1990s, after Mrs. Clinton had left the board, Wal-Mart had added a second female director, but the number of women in senior management remained paltry, according to company records. (Today, 23 percent of Wal-Mart’s top 300 corporate officers are women).

Mrs. Clinton had greater success on environmental issues. At her request, Mr. Walton set up the environmental advisory group, which sent a series of recommendations to the company’s board.
When it came time to pick members, Mrs. Clinton, who led the advisory group, reached out to at least two colleagues from the McGovern presidential campaign — Mr. Mauro and Roy Spence, who headed an advertising firm in Texas that did extensive work for Wal-Mart.
Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features.
Wal-Mart executives put much of the program into place. In 1993, for example, they opened an experimental “eco-store” in Kansas, with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut.

Mrs. Clinton helped broker a secret meeting between a top Wal-Mart executive and former Democratic operative, Leslie Dach, and leaders of the retailer’s longtime adversary at the United Food and Commercial Workers union. The goal of the meeting was to tamp down the rancor between the company and the union.

She opposed Medicare for all simply due to the costs involved and it would render the affordable care act obsolete. Clinton said expanding health benefits to cover the remaining 10% of Americans who cannot access coverage through existing programs or their employers should be done incrementally to build on President Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

 

So did Adolf Hitler.

 

This is NOT the political forum, this is the abortion


forum where abortion is discussed .....if you have a wet-your-pants need to bash Clinton have the backbone to take it to the appropriate forum.


But since you butted in .....the Republican party has repeatedly and continually introduced bill after bill to restrict women's right to abortion, they think women are nothing but cattle to be controlled and think nothing of taking away their rights as humans.

 

Where is the mythical "right" to abortion? Not only is it morally repugnant to think about killing one's own offspring for the sake of convenience (over 95% of all abortions performed are purely out of selfishness), but the Constitutional gymnastics applied are breathtaking indeed.

 

Where is the mythical law making abortion illegal? There is nothing mythical about having a right to your own body....

It may be "morally repugnant"" to you but , surprise!, YOUR morals don't rule the world

No "off spring" are killed in abortion.

Of course abortion is done for convenience ...what the heck did you think women had abortions for???!!!

And I admire the fact that you have NEVER done anything selfish in your life but other people are free to do things only for themselves if they think it best.....


..BTW, "selfish" is neither wrong nor against the law despite what your kindergarten teacher told you...

 

Actually, my morals DO rule the world as far as G-d is concerned. And Hitler would be proud of you assigning personhood only to those who meet the lunatic Left's standards of perfection. And yes, selfishness is dead wrong on all fronts. Women today will never understand what a beautiful gift life from the moment of conception is no thanks to the feminazis.

 

Your "god" doesn't count when human rights are involved, there wouldn't even be a need for laws on human rights IF there was a decent intelligent "god.

The Hitler reference means you lost the argument already...the Hitler/Nazi references are more in line with Anti-Choicers who ALSO wish to control women's reproduction...(abortion has nothing to do with perfection, that's another weird thing to say).


So you don't eat because it would be selfish to deprive others of that food....hey, that's your prerogative but you can't expect others to be that daft.


Here's a corker:

You: """Women today will never understand what a beautiful gift life from the moment of conception is no thanks to the feminazis"""

Ya, right, NO women are having babies now....really? PROVE THAT!

"Feminazis"" invented abortion???? PROVE THAT !

What women understand is your business HOW ???? WHY???










Now , instead of the typical newbie abortion rant why don't you Unselfishly address my post:


Where is the mythical law making abortion illegal? There is nothing mythical about having a right to your own body....

It may be "morally repugnant"" to you but , surprise!, YOUR morals don't rule the world

No "off spring" are killed in abortion.

Of course abortion is done for convenience ...what the heck did you think women had abortions for???!!!

And I admire the fact that you have NEVER done anything selfish in your life but other people are free to do things only for themselves if they think it best.....


..BTW, "selfish" is neither wrong nor against the law despite what your kindergarten teacher told you...

 

The replacement rate for live births is way down because of society's lousy attitude towards families and as the Boomers die off, well guess what? There will be nobody to replace them. Roe is simply our modern Holocaust.

 

Ya, the streets are empty !!! The houses unoccupied! The people have disappeared!! The world will end unless every pregnancy is concluded!!

Roe had nothing to do with the FACT that for hundreds if not thousands of years women have had ways to abort....did you actually think abortion started in 1974 ??

A history book or course may help you....

 

Don't insult my intelligence. In fact Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe is adamantly pro-life now and is crusading to repeal RvW

 

Read your constitution, it's right there under the 14th amendment .. ie right to privacy

The Bill of Rights (1789) proposed by James Madison originally includes the Fourth Amendment, describing an unspecified "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and the Ninth Amendment, stating that "[t]he enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,"

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (186 makes several general references to rights not explicated in the amendment. "No State," the amendment reads, "shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

1965 - Plaintiffs seeking to challenge the Connecticut birth control ban open a Planned Parenthood birth control clinic in New Haven, and are promptly arrested. This gives them standing to sue, and the resulting Supreme Court case - Griswold v. Connecticut - both strikes down all state-level bans on birth control and establishes the right to privacy as a constitutional doctrine. Citing freedom of assembly cases such as NAACP v. Alabama (195, which specifically mentions "freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations,"

You will also find it comes under the right to self-defence, which is defined as "a person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another." In cases involving non-deadly force, this means that the person must reasonably believe that their use of force was necessary to prevent imminent, unlawful physical harm. When the use of deadly force is involved in a self-defense claim, the person must also reasonably believe that their use of deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's infliction or great bodily harm or death.

Notice how deadly force does not just apply to life endangerment cases.

morally repugnant and convenience as you see it .. however what you consider convenience may be a necessity for others, just as what you consider morally repugnant may be perfectly moral for others .. the Constitutional "gymnastics" are in fact not "gymnastics" at all, the right of the female to defend herself against non-consented injuries is very plain and clear, it is exactly the same right you have.

 

Great now all you have to do is prove the existence of God, please do so. (Any god will do as there as so many to choose from)

Lol at Hitler, you do know that it was the Nazi regime that deemed all German woman as property of the state and forbid them from having abortions don't you? sounds very much like what pro-lifers want to me.

 

With a world population increasing year on year please explain how accelerating that process helps, or is it more the case that you only want White middle class Americans to have more children?

Ignorance of your own history will only lower your already low creditability, abortion was happening long before Roe came along .. in fact abortion in the US has been legal for far, far longer than it every was illegal, furthermore abortion bans were put in place not because of some misguided belief in fetal personhood but because the remedies used often poisoned the woman & the doctors wanted to remove mid-wife's etc from being able to perform them .. the whole personhood at conception ideology didn't even exist prior to the late 1960's .. not even in religious communities.