Abortion Survivor Reacts To Clinton’s Abortion Comments: ‘What A Contradiction!’

Abortion survivor Melissa Ohden responded to Hillary Clinton’s recent comments on abortion, calling it a contradiction for Clinton to both acknowledge the personhood of an unborn child and deny that the unborn person has any constitutional rights. Ohden’s comments were in response to an interview Clinton gave on Sunday, where the former secretary of state claimed that “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.”

For Melissa Ohden, the abortion debate is personal. In August 1977, she survived a saline abortion. Five days after the attempted abortion, she was delivered prematurely to a 19-year-old single mother. The saline solution used in the abortion — which scalds the baby’s lungs and skin — left Ohden badly burned, but nevertheless very much alive.

In an email to The Daily Caller, Ohden said she “found Hillary’s comments to be both not surprising and yet very surprising at the same time.”

“I’m not surprised that she continued to eschew the same rhetoric that somehow the preborn do not have constitutional rights — that’s to be expected from her, but I am surprised that in laying out this (faulty) argument, she proceeded to call the preborn ‘unborn person.’ What a contradiction!”

As posted on another thread today:

Fortunately, the Heavenly Father and Creator of those "unborn" human beings has not made the announcement Clinton made.
Neither did the Framers of the Constitution, in all of their writings, debates, speeches and explanations make such an assertion.
Instead, in the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may DESTROY, but CANNOT DISJOIN them." - Thomas Jefferson
“Give us the grace... When the sacredness of life before birth is attacked, to stand up and proclaim that no one ever has the authority to destroy unborn life.” ~ Blessed John Paul II ~

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters
"And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." - Mother Teresa
At the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC on February 3, 1994, Mother Teresa stated: “And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"
Indeed, if we cannot protect the life and liberty of these smallest versions of ourselves, then Mother Teresa's words take on significant meaning.
Clearly, Hillary Clinton's views on life and liberty clash with those of Mother Teresa!

Further, in discussions like the ones Hillary Clinton is having on what the Left euphemistically calls "women's reproductive rights," hers is such an unbending position on the role of women in preventing or destroying life, and little on the historical role of women in advocating for the natural God-given role in creation and preservation of life in all of its stages.

Could that question be answered by examining the fundamental ideas underlying the ideology of the "progressive" movement with its bent toward socialism?

The absolute, coercive and desperate determination of liberals/progressives in this matter may be better understood when the following light is shed upon it. See especially the first paragraph of the following:

From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.