"On a Web site that is to go into operation on Wednesday, Hillary for Senate (www.hillaryclinton.com), Mrs. Clinton's re-election campaign, also highlights her goal of reducing abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies, even as it casts her as a champion of abortion rights."
Are there any other "rights" besides abortion where a high profile candidate will position themselves as a champion of that right while at the same time positioning themselves as trying to reduce how many times that right is exercised?
It obviously doesn't work for many of the rights we consider foundational. Imagine someone being a champion for the right to free speech yet saying that we should work to reduce the number of nonviolent protests. Or a champion of voting rights working to reduce the number of votes that are cast in a given election. Both situations are absurd.
I thought of other issues such as gambling or alcohol use where a legislator could possibly favor having legal gambling and alcohol use yet still try to discourage individuals from gambling or using alcohol. Though plausible, I hardly think it highly unlikely to see someone who is a "champion" of gambling rights/interests saying that the number of people who gamble each year should decrease.
If abortion is a right, especially if it is the kind of foundational right that pro-choice organizations make it out to be, then why should we be working to limit how many times a year this right is exercised? Shouldn't the champions of abortion rights be happy that 1.3 million times a year, women are exercising their rights?
This is the conundrum where many pro-choice politicians find themselves today. On one hand, the "right" to abortion must be firmly recognized, yet on the other hand the number of abortions performed annually should decrease because of how repulsive abortion is. Americans know that an unborn child isn't a mere clump of cells so not caring how many abortions are performed or encouraging higher numbers of abortions won't fly.
HT: The Buzz