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
- 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….