You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

gumshoe_mob ago

Hillary began her "career" writing a piece for the Harvard Review that achieved some acclaim. You have to pay to read the entire thing but here are a couple of links describing it. It seems to be an argument for granting children rights as adults based on maturity rather than age. This is all well and good but is an escape clause for child predators and rapists. It is also the argument that NAMBLA uses, that sex is for children, too, and they should be able to choose when they want to become active sexually with others. I find the arguments too similar to ignore. And then there was HIllary laughing that she got a child predator off easy because he passed a lie detector test, and also because SHE LOST THE EVIDENCE.

Hillary Clinton wrote a piece for the Harvard Review -- purchase access to it here: ---- http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-43,-issue-4/herarticle/_991

Here is a commentary on it: ---------------
what hillary rodham clinton really said about children's rights and child policy https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/30351/0000753.pdf

and here is what is in wikipedia: ----------- Rodham began a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.[59] In late 1973 her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review.[60] Discussing the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals"[61] and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but instead that courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.[62] The article became frequently cited in the field.[63]

QuaeResInduravit ago

"HIllary laughing that she got a child predator off easy because he passed a lie detector test, and also because SHE LOST THE EVIDENCE"