Should We Pillory Hillary?

Hillary Clinton must reject the stigma that abortion should be legal but ‘rare’

Agreeing with anti-choice activists on even that single word hurts women and the cause of reproductive rights

• • 
    Jessica Valenti
  • theguardian.com, Wednesday 9 July 2014

 

Although this article  is referring to our  neighbors to the South and the possible next Prez,  and although Canada has, comparatively,  broader rights than  many or most in the US, thought I would chime in since this is a question that often simmers just below the surface of right wing politics here, always threatening to rear  its ugly head, and send  women back to the Stone Age regarding rights over our bodies..so my stance may surprise many…

Have to respectfully disagree with the author..I too am pro-choice, and the word ‘rare’ should stay..here’s why…aside from  the obvious interpretation, in a land of almost 400 million, the word ‘rare’ could be described as relative…
If abortion became the preferred means of birth control, instead of the alternatives (and a truly ‘safe’ birth-control pill does not yet exist) then men would, once again, be exempt from any sense of, or need for, responsibility – and women who have multiple abortions, out of stupidity or laziness, would have the perfect excuse to continue.
Yes I am pro choice, but I am also pro-education and pro-research money being devoted to the concept of safe birth control being found…right now, that consists of condoms and abstension, neither of which is particularly popular with men or women…Like many broadly philosophical questions of this sort, it is a difficult legal quagmire to  consider, and like it or not, most of our legislators are men, and women who are heavily influenced  by men.

To truly think for yourself is oxy-moronic in the  Team philosophy of modern politics, and it is a rare leader  who allows a free vote on any question, especially one fraught with emotional drop offs like  abortion. Can any leader of any ‘free’ nation say the ‘right’ thing to the largest number of potential voters?

Those of us without religious  hindrances can say ‘yes’ to that question, which means that  rights must be freely given with no conditions, and that would be fabulous  except for two  things…who pays, and how many times? For it is, by  far, the poorest of us who  have unwanted pregnancies,  and then the question becomes an economic one  as well….

I am not  a huge Hillary fan, I find her too right-wing by far to  be supported as a Democratic candidate, but in this case, she must in all conscience support not only women’s rights but  appease those of the citizenry who would deny women any rights at all, including the right to bear, or not, children…after all, in any democracy, the  successful candidate  must take into consideration the will of all the people, not simply her rabid supporters (sarcasm intended)…what happens after an election is successfully realized is another story altogether, as we all painfully must admit….

Poor Hillary, caught between her own often outraged sense of entitlement and the more practical needs of a potential presidential run….