Along with many others, I am morally repulsed by Donald Trump’s behavior: Among other things, how can we forget images of him ridiculing a handicapped person? How can we forget– in his own words—a vivid description of how he sexually mistreats women? It is his sexual abuse of women that in particular has caused many women—and men–to change their allegiance.
An equivalent or even greater moral repulsion seems to be absent regarding the Democratic choice.
Granted, some people are upset with Hillary Clinton for, among other things, what they perceive as her lies. Some are upset about her judgment regarding the use of a private email server.
But Clinton has never made fun of the disabled or sexually mistreated anyone.
Clinton is the more polished politician, the smooth, controlled speaker who knows what to say and when to say it. She is so polished many people seem to overlook what she says.
Many fail to be repulsed by what she says.
What she has said and what has become the new credo of the Democratic Party is the withdrawal of the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment has prevented taxpayer funding from financing abortions en masse. If Clinton has her way—and she is very adamant about doing it—the Hyde Amendment will disappear and poor women on Medicaid will no longer have a financial obstacle to having an abortion. Taxpayers will pay for those abortions.
It already is the case that about three-quarters of abortions are committed because the girls and women say they cannot afford to have the child. Minorities, especially blacks, disproportionately carry out abortion. In some recent years in New York City, black deaths through abortion outnumbered black live births. It’s been said that if the Hyde Amendment falls, abortions overall will increase by about 25%. Since black woman carry out abortion at five times the rate of white women, the increase in abortion for blacks would be even higher if the Hyde Amendment disappears. The Federalist states the following:
“…the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, estimated in a 2007 report that a Hyde Amendment ban on federal funding for abortion has prevented between 18 to 35 percent of women from having an abortion. In other words, removing the Hyde Amendment would increase abortion by roughly 25 percent.”
In any other context, we would be hearing cries of genocide—or at least of racism or classism. But there is a strange silence. Many people have bowed down at the altar of “choice” and believe Clinton’s interpretation of the line, “women’s rights are human rights.”
Clinton has said that “[a]ny right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it, is no right at all.”
This is an extraordinary statement: she is saying that, not only do women’s rights include the right to kill their unborn children; if it is too expense for them to do so, then their rights are being violated. Therefore, in order for human rights to be respected, taxpayers must provide funds for the mass killings.
It also follows—if Clinton is elected and her agenda is carried out—that anyone disagreeing with the funding of abortion by taxpayers will judged to be violating human rights.
Not very long ago in a tenement hallway in Brooklyn, a police officer, who accidentally shot a man in the dark, did not give him first aid because he was more worried about the implications for his job than he was about the victim, who ended up dying. It was a shocking and horrifying incident. How can it be that a person is more worried about job security than someone’s life?
Roe vs. Wade has made it legitimate–made it legal– to worry more about ourselves than another’s life, and it is a lesson that has taken hold in this country. In committing abortions, most of the women are more worried about finances than someone’s life. Or more worried about the ability to continue one’s education than someone’s life. Or more worried about one’s personal feelings than someone’s life.
When one person’s life is snuffed out for the convenience of another, we should all be horrified. We should all find the killing of the unborn children for our convenience a repulsive act.
Yes, Trump used women’s bodies for his convenience. But at least they survived. We as a nation are allowing the actual destruction of the body of an unborn child for the convenience of another person. That is very repulsive. Now Clinton wants us to pay for the killing. That is even more repulsive.
Up till now abortion was more or less the choice of the individual woman pregnant with child.
Now Clinton wants to make us all cooperators in these mass killings by having us pay for them. Thoreau spent time in jail protesting the fact that his taxes were going to finance the Mexican-American War.
What protest will we make if Clinton gets elected and our taxes go toward the killing of the poor? What sensitive part of our souls would we have to shut down to make our lives bearable then? If we become numb and callous toward such killing, how will we treat each other then?