Clinton or Rubio - who's pathetic?

More from Marco Rubio on his stand on abortion:

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

But unlike with marriage, Rubio invoked abortion as an issue in which he said he’s eager to challenge Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a general election. 

“Here’s what I find outrageous: In five Democratic debates, the media has not asked them a single question on abortion,” Rubio said. “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 that is a fundamental right? They are the extremists when it comes to the issue of abortion, and I can’t wait to expose them in a general election.” 

“I just believe deeply that all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws,” Rubio said. “If I’m elected president, and there’s a bill passed that saves lives, but it has exceptions, I’ll sign it. But I do believe deeply that all human life is worthy of the protection of our laws. I’ve already said, for me, the issue of life is not a political issue, and I want to frank, I would rather lose an election, then be wrong on the issue of life.”

Here Hillary Clinton gets all indignant with Rubio:

"I think it's pretty pathetic," Clinton said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "This is something that illustrates how Senator Rubio has just been going as far as he can to try to, I guess, buttress his credentials with certain parts of the Republican constituency. I've been on record for years about where I stand on making abortions safe and legal, the exceptions that are appropriate that should be looked into. And the very difficult choices that very few women have to confront that lead to excruciating kinds of decisions."

Notice that Hillary has dropped the "rare" adjective from her Safe, Legal and Rare mantra. I think that's pathetic.

Planned Parenthood (apparently for the first time ever) endorsed Hillary Clinton. That's Planned Parenthood of selling-fetal-baby-parts fame. Planned Parenthood is also the biggest abortion business in the US. PP and Hillary. Partners. That's pathetic.

Hillary if you want to see pathetic, look in the mirror.

When is a Catholic not a Catholic?

Q. When is a Catholic not a Catholic?
A. When she is a Kennedy.

Carolyn Kennedy said:
"As a Catholic woman, I take reproductive health seriously. And today it is under attack. This year alone, more than a dozen states have passed more than 40 restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care. That's not the kind of future I want for my daughters or your daughters. Now isn't the time to roll back the rights we were winning when my father was president. Now is the time to move this country forward.

Peter Kreeft has an eye-popping perspective on this non-Catholic, pro-abortion world-view in his book Christianity for Modern Pagans where he discusses Pascal's Pensée 8o6.

Kreeft has grouped this one interestingly enough under "Vanity".

First here is what Pascal said:
"We are not satisfied with the life we have in ourselves and our own being. We want to lead an imaginary life in the eyes of others, and so we try to make an impression! (A) We strive constantly to embellish and preserve our imaginary being, and neglect the real one. (B) And if we are calm, or generous, or loyal, we are anxious to have it known so that we can attach these virtues to our other existence; we prefer to detach them from our real self so as to unite them with the other. We would cheerfully be cowards if that would acquire us a reputation for bravery. (C) How clear a sign of the nullity of our own being!"

Here is what Kreeft said regarding (C) above:
"...Test yourself. Use Plato's thought-experiment at the beginning of book 2 of the Republic. Ask yourself which you would rather be: a good soul whom everyone thought evil, hated, misunderstood, persecuted and victimized? Or an evil soul whom everyone thought good, loved and rewarded? Would you rather be really good but apparently evil, like Socrates; or really evil but apparently good, like the perfectly successful tyrant? Would you rather be brave and thought to be a coward, or cowardly but thought to be brave?

Would you rather be a Catholic or a Kennedy?"

Ouch.