On the news of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's landmark speech yesterday about gay rights as human rights, a viewer reminds us of an early address she gave. "Beautiful!" @APitty writes, "And it mirrors her comments from Beijing the 1995 UN Conference on Women."
And indeed, Ms. Clinton's 1995 speech, given when she was the First Lady, is amazing. I don't know whether to find it sad or inspiring, in that so much of its argument remains timely:
It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution for human greed -- and the kinds of reasons that are used to justify this practice should no longer be tolerated.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives.
It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights once and for all.
Leave a Comment:
I love Hillary.
Ditto.
God, I love her. She's the bomb.
I remember this. I brought tears to my eyes to finally have it said, in an international forum, that women mattered. And it brought anger when I heard all the criticism that was heaped on her for it. In this one speech she slapped countries around the world who felt they had the right to treat women any way they wanted. It was NOT taken lightly!
A speech like Hillary Clinton's in 1995 shouldn't even have had to be given. It is a disgrace that these cruelties still exist in the 21st century. When are we going to stop "talking" about it and see that these acts are publicized and punished as they ought to be? Yes, she was perfectly right in every word she spoke, obviously. And yet, nothing much has changed in 16 years. It will probably take another hundred years before there is any significant change in the treatment of women. Even here in the U.S.A, women are discriminated against when it comes to contraception, medical treatment and the right to decide whether or not to continue an unplanned pregnancy. Women need to stand up for themselves once and for all.
Even sadder the speech is even more needed now.
they just need to push pro-choice over there. There would be less starved children or drowned, suffocated, or spines broken, if they would have been aborted. Isn't that what you libs are all about, just get rid of them before you see their face, then its alright. Have an Ultrasound if its not the baby you want just abort it.
Dr Mark Mercer chairman of the Philosophy department at Halifax's St. Mary University ( big Pro Choice advocate) believes that a child is not a person until they are 18 months old.
You libs have real winners fighting for you.
I don't know how to respond to this it is so confused. I suppose it is another example of love the fetus until it is born and then stop caring about the person.
this is not an us versus them argument. this is about only a select few deciding for so many.
women do no abort because they don't like how the baby looks on the ultra sound. they abort for hundreds of reasons other than not wanting the baby. they do not do it for fun or as a means of contraception or light heartedly. they don't do it to spite men and they do not do it to destroy a life.
but they are their own person and the have a right to do what's best for them!
If all females have their uterus removed and put in a jar and send it to you, will that make you happy? You can be in charge of human fecundity.
chemdmd
How is it possible you believe it is OK to categorize everyone that believes in civil rights by citing the name of some obscure nobody that advocates a viewpoint that has nothing to do with anything that is being discussed here?
Actually I believe that a woman can do what ever she chooses with her body and if she get pregnant that she has the right, 100% to choose, what ever she feels is best for her. Did you notice I said "what she feels is best or HER" I did not consider the fetus in any way.
I have 3 children and wish I could have more. I believe a real man's #1 responsibility it to take care of his family. I love kids and work with children every day as part of my job.
The point that I have a hard time with is that the only time a liberal is outraged about the loss of human life is when you can put a cute little face on it.
Hillary's own husband signed a bill that made partial birth abortions legal. For those of you that don't know that partial birth abortions are, it is when the infant's head crests in the birth canal the spine is severed. So my question is what is the difference between a partial birth abortion and drowning a new born infant? In my eyes the only difference I see is about 5 minutes.
Hillary expressing outrage about these terrible things that are done against humity I am in full agreement with, but for her to then turn around and be ok with the bill that her husband signed into law is to me at least inconsistant. It makes her words carry no weight.
I think you have been listening to "the reich" and are projecting onto "liberals"!
This is about "human rights" and whether you are a man/woman/young/old/gay/straight/religuous/atheist - you have them! The problem is we live in a time where "patriarchy is the norm" - and the old, shriveled white guys that have been ruling the world - need to be reminded that they now need to learn how to live in respect for "other" (place your label inside the " ")!!
Women all over the world are treated as third class citizens, and Hilary spoke to that on the world stage at the Beijing conference!! Just as she finally spoke to the human rights of homosexuals yesterday!! With the rise of the "religuluous reich" attempting to regulate every one else's sex lives according to how "they see morality" - they are a threat to everyone's humanity and rights!!
My point is that I'm outraged by immorality, hypocrisy, mendacity, and bs - and that's been flying from the reich for at least the last 2 decades - and "the faces" are many!! I'm not just a liberal, I'm progressive and your initial statement was not just confusing, but thoughtless and mean-spirited!
Because partial birth abortions are only performed in instances where the mother's life is at risk, Chem. Making them illegal only increases the death toll. This is a cynical view that one would assume you- as a "scientist"- would be able to make the distinction between.
Your argument here, Chem, is irrelevant to the conversation. I am sick and tired of people posting comments that are not on topic. Either stay on topic or state your own thread- this isn't rocket science. What is more, no it does not render her comments pointless. It only does to someone who does not understand why partial birth abortions exist or why their legality might be an issue when it comes to saving life. Additionally liberals do not advocate that abortions happen- this is, again, your inability to honestly and objectively analyze a situation. Which again is funny being that you're a scientist and all. Advocating that abortion be legal is not the same as saying you would like everyone to get an abortion. Abortion needs to be legal in order to keep the death toll low. Illegalizing it only increases the likelihood of death. If you truly care about human life then you would support people being able to obtain safe abortions. Failure to support this is hypocritical and shows a lack of understanding regarding how and why abortions happen.
Then you are being hypocritical in your accusations against Hillary. Either you believe the pro-choice position is not advocating murder and therefore is not hypocritical, or you do believe it is advocating murder and therefore Hillary is contradicting herself. Which one is it?
I'm not a "lib"
I'm just a person who cares what happens to other people. The most caring person I know is my father who has been a conservative his whole life.
The Mouzer
To state that partial birth abortions are only preformed when the mother is at risk shows how clueless you are. You are a parrot that watches soap operas. The mother still delivers the child. With a partial birth abortion it is done during the delivery. The only thing that changes with the delivery is that the child is DEAD. It in no way changed the delivery procedure.
I am right on topic, partial birth abortion and drowning new borns is the same thing. The only difference between those two babies is light has not his the retina in one of their eyes. I didn't say her comment was pointless, I said it carried no weight, it's like me telling my teenager to obey the law and then I go drink and drive. My teenager knows I'm full of S@#&.
Here is where I will really piss you off. I do believe that every person has the right to choose and do what ever they want, good or bad. Here it the However, that really pisses libtards off, I also believe that we don't choose the consequences for our action. I also believe in God and that he is the final judge. So if you choose to kill babies that is your sad position and You will answer to God or karma or mother nature but it will come back to you. God gave you free will, no man did, and only God can judge you. For this reason I can say, A woman has the right do choose what ever she wants, weather I agree with it or not isn't relevant, because I am not the judge. If there is no God than killing babies has no consequence and I am wrong. If I am wrong I will still feel better with my personal believe that it is better to give life than destroy it.
....Do you even know what the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is or when it was passed? It explicitly states that the only exception to this is in the instance of life-threatening illnesses or expected life-threatening illnesses or severe disability to the child. SCOTUS upheld this law in Gonzales v. Carhart and you're calling me a parrot? Or that I am ignorant? Seriously? You're the one advocating this position and you don't even know about the legislation that supports your stance? Wow. And yeah actually it did change the delivery procedure by a lot, but the woman's life being threatened does not have to do necessarily w/ whether or not she can push the baby out of her cervix. I would think, as a scientist, you'd know this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation
No Chem you are not on topic. You are using this as an excuse to bash Hillary Clinton and talk about abortion. In doing so you are also simultaneously justifying the acts of brutality against women. This is why it's bad to scapegoat conversations in order to attack someone else. It ends up creating a logical contradiction (one which you did not intend). This is why I stress on people that you should not make these types of arguments. There is a reason why they are called logical fallacies.
You aren't making anyone mad, but I guess it makes you feel good to do so? Weird. I don't recommend living life in anger. So by using your logic we are still left at a contradiction- a contradiction which you did not attempt to address. Which one is it? Is Hillary Clinton a hypocrite because she advocates the murder of babies inside the womb, but not outside OR is judgement of murder not for you and I to levy and therefore you and I are unable to render statements about other's hypocrisy?
I knew you would be pissed. The one things that libs can't stand is thinking they will have to some day be responsible for their action. I know way more than most about health care, I earned the first half of those initials with my first for years of college and earned the last initial with the next for years of professional school.
I am not pissed about anything? What am I pissed about?
Also you still have not addressed the issue at hand or either of my posts...please try to stay on topic.
Chem, by your own argument, the decision is between her and God. Ergo, NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
You ever carry a child to term chem?
chemdmd
You really should become more familiar with the topic.
The difficulty with criminalizing a medical procedure is that 10% of births go wrong, and a mistake during a cesarian section could land the doctor in jail.
Women have the same right to medical care as men, and putting physicians at risk of prosecution for providing a necessary service is discriminatory.
A fetus cannot be considered living for the purpose of law unless it can live on its own outside the mothers body.
Life only happens reliably during the last trimester (the last 90 days of pregnancy). That is when the fetus gains rights.
Laws do not apply to non-living entities.
This means the only prohibition that is legal is to outlaw late-term abortion except in cases where the mothers life is in danger or if the fetus has profound abnormalities (late term abortion laws).
Any other kind of prohibition is based on religious arguments, which contradicts the first amendment (i.e.: unconstitutional).
The only area in which I can see Chem construing that I am/was upset was that I said it annoys me when people present fallacious arguments. One reason that I did not say for why I find this a pet peeve is because fallacious arguments diminish the opposing side's viewpoint, beliefs, and logic. There actually might be a feasible moral argument against IDX or other forms of 16+ week abortions, but by presenting a fallacious argument in order to defend that hypothetical moral stance you end up making the case against your own position. So, in effect, Chem argued for IDX and other medical abortions and not against them. And if I had to guess Chem is completely unaware that he/she has done this.
That's why I said he/she had not addressed the point in either one of my posts. Chem clearly has a logical contradiction w/ the way he/she has presented his/her argument. Because this contradiction exists it makes it impossible for the person hearing the argument to know what position Chem is actually taking or what the pro-life argument actually is. Again I do not like it when people present contradicting arguments because those arguments end up belittling what could otherwise be a valid point. It's just bad, bad practice.
However these pet peeves are not singularly biased- everyone makes them (myself included) at times. Sometimes it's by accident. Other times it's because you have not actually thought through your position. Other times it's due to a lack of information or misinformation about an issue. To say that I was "angry" would be a gross exaggeration of the point I was making. I do not think you are being fair to yourself or your position, Chem, when you engage in either of these faulty practices therefore I implore you (and everyone else) to try your damnedest to avoid them. Sometimes it will happen, but that's the great benefit of participating in group discussions. Then the group can show you the flaws of your argument and you can utilize this tool in order to either better understand (and subsequently argue) your own position or to change your own position entirely.
In this instance I have pointed out that there is a huge flaw in your thinking and subsequently have validated the reason why I responded to your post initially. I had stated that you were deviating from the topic at hand by trying to make this an attack against Hillary Clinton and about abortion, rather than the subject that was being discussed (human rights, women rights, and the US' role pertaining to the two internationally). Your rebuttal was that you were not deviating the conversation because you felt that it was an inconsistent argument on moral grounds as presented by Clinton. You then state that women should have the choice to abort because God is the ultimate judge, but that Hillary should still feel bad for advocating against the torture of women and specifically infant girls because there is no difference between infant girls and a particular abortion procedure which Hillary has previously went on record supporting. If we must, by default, take the position that God is the only entity capable of rendering judgement and therefore morality, then it is impossible for us as humans to dictate morality. Subsequently it is impossible for us as humans to cast judgements on other people. Subsequently this would mean that you could not call someone out on hypocrisy because in order to do so you would have to be assuming at least one of the 2 principles which you've just stated you cannot assume. This is logically inconsistent w/ stating that you feel Hillary Clinton is hypocritical for supporting one and not the other. So by your very own logic we've came to two different conclusions that are also opposing. Thus I asked of you to clarify which position you meant. Instead of answering my question or attempting to refute my claim of the logical contradiction you instead change the subject, again, to being about angry liberals.
So now I am able to conclude that my original hypothesis was correct: you only added this post as a means of attacking Hillary Clinton and derailing the conversation onto a topic that had nothing to do w/ the issue at hand. If I am wrong in that conclusion then you must either answer which side you stand on regarding your own moral argument and subsequent logic or provide a refutation and explanation as to how and why there isn't a contradiction in the first place.
Under this latter tenant we then introduce my complaint- and technically my second hypothesis- which is that you are not actually aware/informed of the topic you are defending. If you were then the contradiction either would have been explained better (because you would've encountered this logical problem before) or you would not have committed the inconsistency.
And that, Chem, is the pet peeve. You've derailed the conversation, attempted to change the topic, attacked other people, and degraded the integrity of the pro-life argument.
@ crackhead, with all due respect, laws also apply to people in a vegetative state. One could hardly call them alive and yet we can't just pull the plug on them at will.
Deleted
samusx
People living in a vegetative state are alive on their own.
There is no way to claim a fetus is independently alive without the mother's body.
People living in a vegetative state live or die without the requirement for their life to be sustained by remaining attached to another human being. Most can sustain their own heartbeat and breathe on their own. Most just need a feeding tube and catheter.
One of my nephews was like that for about 3 months following an automobile accident. He made it through college after coming out of the coma. A vegetative state can last several years while the brain heals to some extent.
Hardly comparable to a fetus, which cannot achieve life separate from the mother without gestating at least 180 days after conception.
Medically necessary early termination of pregnancy is often required because of pregnancy complications that can kill the mother and/or the child.
Any argument that gives the unborn child more rights than the mother involves religion.
Voluntary abortions become unnecessary if the mother has social support, such as free child care and education. Mothers generally only seek voluntary early termination of pregnancy due to rape, incest, discrimination, lack of social support, or inadequate income.
Stimulating discussion.
Not at all true, if you pull the plug they die. I fail to see the difference between the two.
I'm pro-choice but let's not pretend that usually women have abortions to shuck the responsibility associated with a child. Since one out of every four pregnancies result in an abortion surely you can't believe otherwise.
.
Mrs. Clinton's voice is among the most clear and positive on this issue, which will likely be seen by future generations as the defining human rights issue of the 21st Century. God bless Hilary Clinton. May her voice be heard throughout the world by Jews and Christians, Greeks and Romans (and all others), white and darker skinned.
THANK YOU Hillary!
Humans have only the rights they are willing to defend.
The right to life for sperm is Sacred when God has Testicles, so of course the gestational device is unimportant.
The rest of this litany of evil is created by a caste consciousness that saturates current society.
Most females on this planet are trapped in a senile social/cultural system pasted together from nomadic/pastoral parasitism schemes.
It is killing an entire planet. Your species will not be here in a hundred years, so cheer up.
Odd that this administration would be willing to make such a strong statement in favor of gay rights internationally when many states in the USA -- right here at home -- probably wouldn;t qualify under these standards. The White House should not be lecturing the world on gay rights when America itself is abiding discriminatory and bigoted laws meant solely to deny gay citizens the same rights as everyone else. This is downright offensive when you consider that Obama will not take a stand against bigotry occurring in our own borders. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
The federal government is a sovereign that is separate and isolated from states that are also sovereigns.
Each has different laws and policies, and sometimes those conflict.
Just about the only way to enforce something universally is to amend the constitution.
Just like this administration claims democracy is best when it comes to Egypt but DHS coordinates to shut down Occupy camps across the US. What's good for other countries isn't always good for the US.
justiceischeap
If DHS was actually involved with OWS, then why is that not reported by any credible news source?
Pres. of the US has no authority to deploy law enforcement within the US except for interstate crime. That does not apply to OWS.
Pres. Obama has a PhD in this, so I doubt he would make that mistake.
Pres. Obama has encouraged local authorities to work with OWS without resorting to violence :>
Not to get all paraoiac here, but http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042835/-Why-is-the-Federal-Government-Militarizing-our-Police-Departments?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/police-militarization-use-of-force-swat-raids_b_1123848.html?ref=tw
but oddly enough, no paramilitary manuvers against the bad actors in Wall Street. Its not like they are that hard to find.
How remarkable that Hillary is in the one job where she can enforce this policy outside the US.
Funny thing.
Human female trafficking (slavery) is worst in Iran. That was a big part of this speech without specifically bringing up the middle east.
It was actually a stroke of brilliance. Her speech shines a light on the bigotry of Sharia nations and Christian Fundamentalists, giving them common cause. Likewise in their patriarchal misogyny. She argues brilliantly for a more progressive WORLD. Hollah!
Too bad those types just don't care about human rights!
She's a woman for all seasons! I love her too.
Hillary Clinton was vilified by Republicans when she was First Lady. Now she has become the most competent Secretary of State in decades. It makes me happy that she did not become vice-president since it would have been a waste of talent. The public loves Bill and Hillary Clinton despite all the nastiness of Fox News and the Lewinsky scandal. Bush will never reach that level of acceptance by the public. Maybe Obama could make Hillary the next nominee to the SCOTUS.
I read that she said that line so similar to her First Lady speech promoting womens' rights and human rights. I was so moved to see the latest video. Thank you for showing it.
I am painfully aware that some nations' representatives and many in our own nation recoiled upon hearing or reading it, but the times they are a changin'.
I never would have believed my eyes or ears back in the 60's-and 70's.
This was one of those terrific speeches that just plain laid it all out on the line. Bravo, Hillary!!