Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hillary Clinton on Feminism and Abortion


docyabut2

Recommended Posts

I was a Democrat most of my life until  they  supported a  infant  being  killed minutes before they were born,  I watch the hearings, when women of that party actually said an infant can be killed before they are  born,,  but if the head was out they had the right to live, sick. All lives matter  but what about the life of baby? I would  never return to that party :(

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons
Edit inflammatory topic title
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary commented on the constitutional rights of unborn children on The View and also expressed her support of Roe vs. Wade. I have not been able to find any info on Democrats saying that an infant can be killed before they are born. Do you have any sources we can refer to?

 

Edited by Clair
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, docyabut2 said:

I was a Democrat most of my life until  they  supported a  infant  being  killed minutes before they were born,  I watch the hearings, when women of that party actually said an infant can be killed before they are  born,,  but if the head was out they had the right to live, sick. All lives matter  but what about the life of baby? I would  never return to that party :( They go on and on how they fight for lives  and rights, but never to the right  to  life and the pursuit of happiness  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not certain that in saying a baby has no constitutional rights until it is born is the same as saying one supports an infant being killed just seconds away from birth. Most states prohibit abortion after fetal viability (with few exceptions such as when a mother's life is endangered in some way). But yeah, if you have anything we can read or look at so that we can understand where that point of view was coming from, it would be helpful.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just did a Google search on this topic and got many links.

But they would be doubted because the sources are seen as right leaning, such as Breitbart, Fox News, The Hill, etc.

Also, they contained material that I found very disturbing.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ZZ430 said:

Just did a Google search on this topic and got many links.

But they would be doubted because the sources are seen as right leaning, such as Breitbart, Fox News, The Hill, etc.

Also, they contained material that I found very disturbing.

These  abortion hearings were  on C span many years ago, iIcould`nt believe what I was hearing from these women

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can side with the pro life far more easily when bc is accessible and affordable for everyone who wants it. That includes the day after pill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would be extremely disturbing, were it true. It is not. Well, "before born," yes. But "minutes before," absolutely not. At least not in the US. Someone can fact-check this for the specifics, but as I recall in most states a fetus cannot be aborted after around 24 weeks. I might be mistaking that for the earliest a premie can survive, because a pregnancy is regarded as full term at 37 weeks.

The point is, despite my shaky memories on these facts, after a certain point abortions would be considered illegal unless delivering the fetus full term would impose a clear and dangerous risk to the mother (there are certain medical conditions that pose such risks but they're certainly not the norm).

Usually Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans pro-life. I'm a lifelong Republican and used to be staunchly pro-life (due to personal experiences, primarily), but I'm getting old and am softening on the issue, myself. Perhaps I fall somewhere in the middle now, or a little right-of-middle.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I know of this kmt is right on there. Late term abortion is only upheld if the mother is going to die as a result of continuing the pregnancy (was a Supreme Court ruling some time back).

My personal feeling is that abortion is not a form of birth control. Also, with the advent of so called 'Plan B' one can stop implantation if there is a contraceptive failure. My only (personal) reason for ever opting for abortion would be if the fetus had chromosomal or developmental damage that would result in a horrific life. Just my personal feeling on this and I know everyone has their own feelings/opinions on this matter.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

This would be extremely disturbing, were it true. It is not. Well, "before born," yes. But "minutes before," absolutely not. At least not in the US. Someone can fact-check this for the specifics, but as I recall in most states a fetus cannot be aborted after around 24 weeks. I might be mistaking that for the earliest a premie can survive, because a pregnancy is regarded as full term at 37 weeks.

The point is, despite my shaky memories on these facts, after a certain point abortions would be considered illegal unless delivering the fetus full term would impose a clear and dangerous risk to the mother (there are certain medical conditions that pose such risks but they're certainly not the norm).

Usually Democrats are pro-choice and Republicans pro-life. I'm a lifelong Republican and used to be staunchly pro-life (due to personal experiences, primarily), but I'm getting old and am softening on the issue, myself. Perhaps I fall somewhere in the middle now, or a little right-of-middle.

Im not sure about the abortion law but yes 24 weeks is generally accepted as the point where a fetus has a chance to survive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I could do some searching myself, so I can see where this information came from. From what searching I have done, I couldn't find anything. I do know, because I tend to do searches a lot for just personal inquiry, that not everything sticks around. I would think, a deep thorough and drown out search might come up with something, but right now, I didn't find anything close to the OP's point. 

But, going with the flow here, I do believe there are partial-birth bans and probably a recent law passed against them. I think this was passed during Bush's term. I found this: It seems to have some legal terms and such prohibiting it. 

And there is this I found:

Quote

In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Signed by President George W. Bush, the ban was immediately challenged in federal court. Arriving at the U.S. Supreme Court for a second time, the partial-birth abortion ban was once again in the spotlight, garnering much attention due to the gruesome and inhumane procedure which it was attempting to ban. On April 18, 2007, the Court handed down its decision in the Gonzales v. Carhart case. Proving to be a huge win for the pro-life community/movement, the decision validated extending protection for unborn babies and women by upholding the ban on brutal partial-birth abortions while allowing the exclusion of a health exception. For the first time, we were able to ban an abortion procedure because of its gruesomeness, inhumanity, and lack of medical necessity.

And this wikipedia page  that seems to back it up. 

I wonder though, if one, the women reported to be representatives of the Democratic party, and are they just some who are, but are some lose part of it. I would think, from observation, that there are examples of lose versions of every party. I would think, not every individual in a party is viewed as entirely as someone others would be one hundred percent agreed with. 

For me, I find it interesting I can't find evidence ( for right now ) of this. I personally think the majority, would back this. I don't, in my mind. 

I have often found, there will always be a small group, that takes advantage of anything and use it irresponsibly. I have heard that a small group tend to look at abortion as a 'birth control' act. In which, they should be stopped. But, I would highly expect that is not the frame of mind of most who view abortion as the right to control their decisions. In most situations, that I am aware of, it's usually in the beginning of the pregnancy stage, and it's more of a dire situation, than those who some assume are using it for 'birth control'. 

Maybe it's me, but consideration there is the term: feminism, in the title as well, I don't see it really being mention how it really plays a part in the subject. I don't equate feminism and going gung ho on abortion in the same mindset. 

If I'm understanding feminism in the usual sense:

Quote
  •  the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

  • : organized activity in support of women's rights and interests

I would not equate abortion, as really a big part of it. I think abortion is a separate issue. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I thought I could do some searching myself, so I can see where this information came from. From what searching I have done, I couldn't find anything. I do know, because I tend to do searches a lot for just personal inquiry, that not everything sticks around. I would think, a deep thorough and drown out search might come up with something, but right now, I didn't find anything close to the OP's point. 

But, going with the flow here, I do believe there are partial-birth bans and probably a recent law passed against them. I think this was passed during Bush's term. I found this: It seems to have some legal terms and such prohibiting it. 

And there is this I found:

And this wikipedia page  that seems to back it up. 

 

Yeah, I haven't been able to find anything either to support the OP. I even tried searching for "c-span abortion hearings" and that was utterly pointless- way too many debates about the issue in general to figure out what that's supposed to be without further input from the OP to support their point. C-span has been on for almost 30 years now, so "many years ago" could be almost anything.

I'm going to strongly suggest docy does some research, and try to find source material she is referring to and provide it please.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you reread docyabut2's post she was specifically mentioning hearings she listened to where the pro-choice proponents were defending late term abortions, I don't think she has said anything about it being law or stated what the law is.  In other words, she could never be part of a party that supports late term abortion which some of the more radical certainly do.  Dr. Kermit Gosnell is one practitioner who regularly performed these abortions but was prosecuted for murder when it was found that some of the babies he "aborted" had already been born. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/abortionist-joked-baby-big-enough-walk-around-me-or-walk-me-bus-stop

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I remember Fiorina saying something like this. The problem is that they say a lot of things that have no basis in fact. That doesn't seem to matter anymore, because it's all about "truthyness" now. In other words, if a politician can get you to believe it, and you feel a certain way because of that, it doesn't matter whether or not it's actually true. 

The link between contraception, abortion and feminism is pretty easy to understand. If one doesn't have control of their reproductive lives, they don't have control over their lives. It's pretty simple. If women can be kept pregnant and with a bunch of kids for most of their adult lives, then they can't do much with their adult lives. It takes us out of the equation. Especially, if we're poor and can't afford child care. For a very long time, even talk of contraception was considered obscene. 

The issue with abortion is a question of which "life" you value more, and at which point. Do you value the woman who is already here and thinking and feeling, or do you value the fetus, which could just naturally not come to term. And the other question is should anyone else get to decide for the woman involved when her life matters more and when it doesn't? Or when her health matters more and when it doesn't?

The procedure that is often referred to as partial-birth abortion (really intact dilation and extraction) is something that would only be done if the woman's life is in danger, or if she has already miscarried. Making it illegal doesn't mean that the abortion doesn't happen. If the life of the woman is at risk, then a feticidal injection is given prior to extraction.

It might be your personal belief that a woman whose life is in danger due to her pregnancy should just shout, heroically...take the baby...and choose her own death. That isn't anyone else's right to impose on someone. In fact, it's not even anyone else's right to impose that on a doctor who is supposed to try and help their patient.

There is currently no provision for the health of the woman. Without such a provision, women can be forced to carry to term fetuses that have no chance of survival...even though that could leave her unable to carry a later pregnancy, or put her health at serious risk due to other conditions like diabetes being made worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

If you reread docyabut2's post she was specifically mentioning hearings she listened to where the pro-choice proponents were defending late term abortions, I don't think she has said anything about it being law or stated what the law is.  In other words, she could never be part of a party that supports late term abortion which some of the more radical certainly do.  Dr. Kermit Gosnell is one practitioner who regularly performed these abortions but was prosecuted for murder when it was found that some of the babies he "aborted" had already been born. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/abortionist-joked-baby-big-enough-walk-around-me-or-walk-me-bus-stop

No one was ever supporting this...

Practice conditions and procedures[edit]

  • Extreme unsanitary conditions (resulting in cases of STDs and sepsis); pervasive non-sterile conditions; blood stained materials and instruments; contamination of the facilities by animalfeces, urine, and other noxious fluids and waste; and months-old fetal remains stored in "jars, bags and jugs"[56] (in 2013 the trial heard that Gosnell had also been in dispute with his medical waste company, with the latter stopping their services);[57]
  • Surgical malpractice including perforation of bodily organs and "on at least two occasions" death;[55]
  • Improper equipment and usage, including repeated reuse ("over and over") of disposable supplies, and "generally broken" life-saving and monitoring equipment (including blood pressuremonitoring, oximeters, and defibrillators);[58]
  • Padlocked emergency access and exit routes;[58]
  • Lack of properly trained staff, "bogus doctors"[59] — unqualified, unlicensed and unsupervised staff who misrepresented themselves to patients as qualified licensed clinicians — and no qualified nurses.[60] The jury reported that "Most of Gosnell’s employees who worked with patients had little or no remotely relevant training or education"[61] (ex-employee Marcella Choung, who in 2001 and at interview in 2002 gave a detailed written complaint to the Pennsylvania Department of State, testified that her 'training' for anesthesia consisted of "a 15-minute description by Gosnell and reading a chart he had posted in a cabinet.")[62]
  • Gosnell himself was largely absent and left the clinic to be operated by his unqualified employees, whom he sometimes "ordered" to perform medical actions even if they "protested" that they were unqualified. Employees testified they had to rely on themselves, as "Gosnell disliked it when workers disturbed him by calling for medication advice";[63]
  • Operation of a "prescription treadmill" whereby blank signed prescriptions would be left for those seeking controlled medications, unsupervised and uncontrolled by a practitioner (which was the subject of a parallel and separate Federal investigation);[58]
  • Willful non-compliance with laws intended to safeguard vulnerable women, including non-compliance with requirements for mandatory counseling, consent (for minors), waiting periods (between visiting and surgery);[64]
  • Fraudulent temporary employment of a nurse for 4 days during an NAF inspection, with the aim of deceiving the inspectors into believing that his practice staff included a licensed registered nurse (which it did not); over the few days of their on-site review, the nurse resigned upon realizing the fraud, which also involved Gosnell taking her paycheck back afterwards and paying her in cash instead;[65]
  • Fraudulent recording of gestational age and training of staff to manipulate ultrasound in a way that would match the stated number of weeks;[66]
  • Dishonest statements by Gosnell and employees to investigators, including claims that Ms. Mongar's death was due to her own action (discredited forensically), falsification and destruction of records, and lying about the manner of her death and Gosnell's (lack of) presence for anesthesia;[67]
  • Patients given labor and delivery inducing drugs during the day, then left waiting until late evening for Gosnell to attend or for surgery.[68] Many gave birth during the day as a result, and employees testified "it was standard procedure for women to deliver fetuses – and viable babies – into toilets" while waiting for his arrival.[69]
  • Practice staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them (or ensuring their death).[55] As part of this, fetuses and babies had their demise "ensured" post-operatively by severing of the spinal cord with scissors, known by staff as "snipping". Most of these were deemed infeasible to prosecute because files and other evidence were not held, although the report stipulates they numbered in the "hundreds". Among the "few cases" where tangible evidence existed, the jury noted a boy aged 30 weeks at 6 pounds; a frozen body in a water container of "at least" 28 weeks; remains of at least one abortion of over 32 weeks for which an extra $1000 had been demanded; testimony of a baby heard to make noise; and a baby left "moving and breathing for at least 20 minutes" prior to "snipping". The jury heard testimony about "special" Sunday sessions, at which only Gosnell and his wife were present, which the jury suspected (and in some cases was able to corroborate) would include cases that were more advanced in time, or more disturbing;[70]
  • Over time, Gosnell and his practice acquired a "bad reputation" and during the decade 2000–9, local community organizations ceased referring patients there. To compensate, the practice took on referrals from other in-state cities; it became understood that Gosnell's center would perform abortions "at any stage, without regard for legal limits";[71]
  • Where induced labor failed, Dr Gosnell would attempt to abort surgically, "often calamitous[ly]" for the woman involved. Example outcomes included:[72]
    • Woman "left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon"; relatives called police after entrance refused, remedial colon surgery required.
    • Woman sent home with fetal remains unremoved, "serious infection" led to near death.
    • Punctured uterus leading to shock from blood loss and hysterectomy; woman "held for hours" by the practice.
    • Patient suffered "convulsions" and fell off the operating table, sustaining a head injury, Gosnell "wouldn’t call an ambulance, and wouldn’t let the woman’s companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance"
    • Sedation used to mute sounds of pain; Gosnell specified pre-set amounts of drugs for non-physician staff to use on patients, but without reference to individual needs, and without records or monitoring of condition. On numerous occasions, the same patient was dosed multiple times in quick succession by different employees;[73]
    • Death of Karnamaya Mongar, who received "repeated unmonitored, unrecorded intravenous injections of Demerol" (meperidine hydrochloride, an opioid analgesic which the report describes practice staff using as a cheap but dangerous sedative), and ceased breathing. Staff were unable to revive her (emergency medications were not used and the defibrillator was not working), and paramedics were unable to revive her after gaining access, in part because they were deceived by staff as to what had happened and the drugs and dosages responsible.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiThaKWsZHOAhXH7yYKHb0YACYQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKermit_Gosnell&usg=AFQjCNESMjrtdbD4dAUb4gyFfNK7ZjNvRQ&bvm=bv.127984354,d.eWE

If the OP is referring to Gosnell, her assertion is that pro-choice people and/or Democrats in general are somehow in support of these illegal acts. 

Edited by ChaosRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta wonder if the OP's political party switch didnt come around the same time as a religious conversion. That kind of rhetoric is common in the evangelical crowds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@chaosrose - I didn't say she was referring to Gosnell as she never mentioned him, I was merely pointing out that she wasn't talking about the law, at least not that I saw, she was talking about people's opinions.   I too remember those hearings from years ago and there were/are plenty or people who absolutely support late term, right up to just before birth, abortions .  Hell, I know people who feel this way now.  I used Gosnell as an evidence that it, late term abortions, do occur albeit he is an extreme example.     That said, I am not against abortion if practiced sensibly and yes, I totally agree women have a right to control their reproductive lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use to be pro life but I'm pro choice now.

I will always count abortion as killing a life and I never want it to be an easy choice for someone. But I feel it's better to let people decide to have it or not after they screw up and get pregnant. If they cant aborte it they will either just give the kid away who will then jump around the foster system alot. Or honestly there is a good chance the parent might keep it but be a bad parent in the first place or just not be able to afford it. 

If God is real people say babies are blameless so it's like a free pass to heaven anyways. 

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

@chaosrose - I didn't say she was referring to Gosnell as she never mentioned him, I was merely pointing out that she wasn't talking about the law, at least not that I saw, she was talking about people's opinions.   I too remember those hearings from years ago and there were/are plenty or people who absolutely support late term, right up to just before birth, abortions .  Hell, I know people who feel this way now.  I used Gosnell as an evidence that it, late term abortions, do occur albeit he is an extreme example.     That said, I am not against abortion if practiced sensibly and yes, I totally agree women have a right to control their reproductive lives. 

She said this...

I was a Democrat most of my life until  they  supported a  infant  being  killed minutes before they were born

What Gosnell did was illegal and no pro-choice person or Democrat would support what he did. 

There is no medical condition a man can have that makes his life become a secondary consideration on an operating table. Anti-choice people would like to have it so that this is the situation for women. As it stands, there can be serious health risks to a woman, and the consideration is still for the fetus over her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

There is no medical condition a man can have that makes his life become a secondary consideration on an operating table.

Vasectomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton does support late term abortions provided the the health or life of the Mother is at stake link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sweetpumper said:

Vasectomy.

And how does a man's life become secondary to other considerations during that operation?

Edited by ChaosRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right guys that was way back then when PBA was  first allowed.  In the debate was to let women have that choice right up to birth, so in the abortion they turned the baby around by its feet and just before pulling out reach up and crush  the head with a sizzer. I am women and was all for women rights to a abortion in the first month, but to go that far is so heart breaking.Sorry its just turn me away from the whole  democrat party.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.