Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Rubio and Fiorina: Make Dems justify own pro-abortion extremism

    Rubio and Fiorina: Make Dems justify own pro-abortion extremism

    These two candidates have done the best at turning around the extremism question.

    During Saturday night’s NH GOP debate, Marco Rubio was asked how he planned to tackle social issues with millennial voters, in particular issues of life and marriage.

    Rubio discussed abortion as a two-fold issue — one dealing with women’s rights and the other with the right to life. “I’ve chosen to err on the side of life,” he said. Hillary Clinton’s stance on abortion was pulled into his answer as Rubio called her views “extreme.”

    Rubio’s full answer:

    “To me the issue of life is not a political issue, it’s a human rights issue and it’s a difficult issue because it puts in conflict two competing rights. On the one hand is the right for a woman to choose what to do with her body which is a real right, and on the other hand is the right of a human unborn child to live. They’re in conflict and as a policy maker, I must choose which one of these two sides takes precedence and I’ve chosen to err on the side of life.

    Here’s what I find outrageous. There has been five Democratic debates and the media has not asked them a single question on abortion and on abortion, the Democrats are extremists. Why doesn’t the media ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that all abortion should be legal, even on the due date of that unborn child? Why don’t they ask Hillary Clinton why she believes that partial-birth abortion, which is a gruesome procedure that has been outlawed in this country; she thinks it’s a fundamental right. They are the extremists when it comes to the issue of abortion.”

    The human rights angle is a great argument and one that can and should gain a fair amount of traction. It’s also not one that often makes it’s way into the political arena. So I welcome that with open arms.

    Rubio’s line that “Hillary Clinton’s views are extreme” also was used by Carly Fiorina in July.

    In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Fiorina said:

    “Let’s also talk about Hillary Clinton’s position. Let’s talk about what extreme is. It’s not a life until it leaves the hospital, that’s Hillary Clinton’s position. It’s Hillary Clinton’s position that a 13-year-old girl needs her mother’s permission to go to a tanning salon or get a tattoo, but not to get an abortion. It’s Hillary Clinton’s position that women should not be permitted to look at an ultrasound before an abortion, and yet people who are trying to harvest body parts can use an ultrasound to make sure that those body parts are preserved so they can be sold. That Jake, is extreme.”

    “I would really be delighted if for once, the media would ask Hillary Clinton about the extremism of her position.”

    Video here:

    Pro-Life views such as those held by Rubio and Fiorina never will be accepted as valid by the mainstream media and liberal interest groups. So there’s no sense trying to convince them — better to turn the argument around and make Democrats justify their own extremism.

    Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    The state-established pro-choice religion, whether it is selective exclusion (e.g. “=”) as a civil rights issue, or selective-child as a human rights issue, or class diversity as discrimination against individuals based on their “skin color”, or reactive parenthood that enables clinical cannibalism, or progressive wars without accountability, or anti-native policies that displace people and create a refugee crisis, or widespread abuse of eminent domain by environmental lobbyists, is the issue.

    That said, the issues raised by rejecting human rights by the pro-choice faithful are two-fold. One, the ulterior motives for social projects (e.g. multi-trillion dollar welfare industry) sponsors progressive corruption. Two, violating human rights through selective termination of [wholly innocent, defenseless] human lives serves to debase all human life. People should be objectively concerned that the pro-choice religion has enabled the progression from selective-child to clinical cannibalism, as exemplified by the Reactive (“Planned”) Parenthood corporation.

    The consequences of establishing a pro-choice religion are not limited to the rise of female chauvinists and their “final solution” that [selectively] terminates [wholly innocent, defenseless] human lives by the millions annually for wealth, leisure, pleasure, and leverage. The conversation about resuming sacrificial rites under the state-estabished pro-choice cult needs to address debasement of human life, but also other policies based on its selective principles, and its role as a first-order cause of catastrophic anthropogenic government waste.

    While we cannot prevent women from unilaterally, selectively terminating their child’s life for reasons of wealth, pleasure, leisure, narcissism, or convenience, it is insane to establish a quasi-religious or [a]moral philosophy/law that normalizes or promotes a majority psychopathy. Not even the Chinese left’s one-child policy carried out by the Party’s ruling minority is comparable to the implications of a psychopathy present in the general population that rejects the exceptional value of human life.

    it’s a human rights issue and it’s a difficult issue because it puts in conflict two competing rights

    Exactly. The individual dignity of the mother and the intrinsic value of her child. Specifically, her child’s unalienable Right to Life under our national charter and as the second listed party, Posterity, to our social compact, The Constitution. And, of course, by virtue of the consensus on universal human rights throughout our evolution.

    The practice of clinical cannibalism engaged by Reactive (Planned) Parenthood corporation et al deserves to be considered separately as something truly primitive and barbaric.

      JerryB in reply to n.n. | February 9, 2016 at 7:07 am

      it’s a human rights issue and it’s a difficult issue because it puts in conflict two competing rights

      Exactly. The individual dignity of the mother and the intrinsic value of her child.

      n.n, you nailed it. I’ll build on that. There is NO conflict of rights. It’s not about any right to one’s body, it’s about the dignity of motherhood. A mother has no more “right” to clean out her womb than she does to “clean out” her nursery one year later.

    Fiorina and Rubio: Make Dems justify own pro-abortion extremism
    Much like Cruz was talking about the Wall years before Trump.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend