Comments:Clinton's speech at St. Mary's University stirs debate over abortion

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Why Would a Catholic University Allow Pro-Choice Speakers?[edit]

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

I once heard an example trying to define a philosophical axiom that the whole of an object is contained in a piece. For example, if you take a pie, cut a piece out of the pie, you in essence have the whole of the pie in that one piece. All that the pie contains is in that one piece. On that premise, if you take a human life at conception, all that makes up a human person already exists in that tiny embryo - to destroy it you destroy a person. Why would Senator Clinton want to speak at a University that upholds Catholic doctrine and the right to life for every human being? Why would a Catholic University give an openning to Senator Clinton who neither believes or respects Catholic teaching or the right of human life to exist from the first moment of its conception? This is not a "Catholic issue" it is a "human right's issue." If someone cannot respect life at its very beginning, how could we truly hope she/they would really stand up for the right to life at any stage of life. Given a "reason", it would seem all human life is put at risk. Does inconvinience becomes a woman's right to end a life, or emotional upset, or even a medical danger? —RoseMarie - (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)RoseMarieReply[reply]

You anti-choice guys always avoid the tiny fact that until the brain begins to function the “thing” is nothing but a parasite in a woman's body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clinton's Speech at St Mary's Univ. Re: debate over abortion[edit]

Religious beliefs and Politics are two separate things. Mrs Clinton is only appealing to the people to vote for her. Pro-choice is just that, a choice. We as women can not allow the chuch or government to dictate what we do with our anatomy or how many children we choose to have or not. It scares me the stronghold male dominance has on us. It also concerns me the things they do to keep that. It is effident by the number of males that just can't stand the thought of voting for Hillary, simply because she is a woman. In addition, there is no reason, other than men are in charge of the Catholic church rules, that we should be allowed to be Priests. Mandy LLamas, San Jose, CA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I wish I were a woman[edit]

Then I could hold exactly the same positions that I currently hold -- that a fetus' right to live is more important than a woman's right to kill it, that there are many worthy women who I would be happy to vote for who aren't Hillary Clinton, and that there are many religions who ordain women, and if you think the Catholic Church is wrong, then join one of them -- without being called a hypocrite.

I guess she could still accuse me of being a traitor to my gender and brainwashed by the man-centric male-ocracy, and maybe she would be right. - 16:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]