• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton 'Unborn person' has no constitutional rights gaffe riles all sides...

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton ran afoul of both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion debate Sunday when she said constitutional rights do not apply to an “unborn person” or “child.”

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”
Hillary Clinton: 'Unborn person' has no constitutional rights - Washington Times




What a dope!
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What she said is not untrue. Brutal truth yes, but not untrue.
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It was not very bright of her to use the word "person" in that context. After all, it is "persons" that the Due Process Clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit government from depriving of life without due process of law.
 

Citizen.Seven

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
1,967
Reaction score
718
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What she said is not untrue. Brutal truth yes, but not untrue.
Actually, what she said was horrific. By calling a fetus an "unborn person", she acknowledged that it is a person. To then assert that a person, of whatever status, "has no rights" is abhorent, immoral, and contrary to the US constitution. For a lawyer to use such sloppy language is astounding, particularly since she is also a politician and knows, or should know, that it remains a hot button issue.
 

DiAnna

Hooter Babe
Moderator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Messages
49,403
Reaction score
27,095
Location
Northern California
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
As everyone is well aware, legally she was absolutely correct. However, "Mrs. Clinton also said “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” on abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy."

Fmr. Sec. Clinton's is pro-choice, but she does not hold an extremist position, so she will automatically run afoul of both pro-life and pro-choice extremists and extremist organizations.

Nothing to see here.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually, what she said was horrific. By calling a fetus an "unborn person", she acknowledged that it is a person. To then assert that a person, of whatever status, "has no rights" is abhorent, immoral, and contrary to the US constitution. For a lawyer to use such sloppy language is astounding, particularly since she is also a politician and knows, or should know, that it remains a hot button issue.

:shrug: sorry, it doesn't affect me in the least. People are just grabbing in order to claim political points. It's a non-issue in my book as the meaning of what she was talking about is well known. People far too often cherry pick words in order to claim that X or Y person "actually said" this or that or whatever when if you examine the context it actually means something completely different. We see it time and again in politics. I prefer to listen to the context more than the words. If others did this and were honest there'd be a lot less division than there is in this country.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
41,894
Reaction score
18,977
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As everyone is well aware, legally she was absolutely correct. However, "Mrs. Clinton also said “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” on abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy."
Fmr. Sec. Clinton's is pro-choice, but she does not hold an extremist position, so she will automatically run afoul of both pro-life and pro-choice extremists and extremist organizations.

Nothing to see here.

Why should there be 'reasonable restrictions' in the third trimester? If only the woman has rights and not the thing inside her, why should the rights of the woman be 'restricted?'

Its good to see liberal politicians finally asked questions about their positions on abortion for a change.
 

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
41,894
Reaction score
18,977
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
:shrug: sorry, it doesn't affect me in the least. People are just grabbing in order to claim political points. It's a non-issue in my book as the meaning of what she was talking about is well known. People far too often cherry pick words in order to claim that X or Y person "actually said" this or that or whatever when if you examine the context it actually means something completely different. We see it time and again in politics. I prefer to listen to the context more than the words. If others did this and were honest there'd be a lot less division than there is in this country.

Except words are important particularly in this case. Liberals never make the mistake of referring to the unborn as a person or a baby. Why? Because once they do the announce the immorality of their own position. Clinton just stepped in it. Not that it will matter with the left, they wont care, but it will likely prompt a string of uncomfortable Q&A's for liberals.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Except words are important particularly in this case. Liberals never make the mistake of referring to the unborn as a person or a baby. Why? Because once they do the announce the immorality of their own position. Clinton just stepped in it. Not that it will matter with the left, they wont care, but it will likely prompt a string of uncomfortable Q&A's for liberals.

Context is far more important. :shrug:
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
108,776
Reaction score
53,186
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton ran afoul of both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion debate Sunday when she said constitutional rights do not apply to an “unborn person” or “child.”

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”
Hillary Clinton: 'Unborn person' has no constitutional rights - Washington Times




What a dope!

Well, at least she is legally correct and has a more rational position than, say, Trump...
 

MrT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
2,426
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Why should there be 'reasonable restrictions' in the third trimester? If only the woman has rights and not the thing inside her, why should the rights of the woman be 'restricted?'

Its good to see liberal politicians finally asked questions about their positions on abortion for a change.

Reasonable restrictions are allowed because the right to privacy, like all rights, is not unlimited and it can be limited when the government is pursuing a legitimate interest. In this case, the government can claim a legitimate interest in protecting a fetus that has obtained viability because it is close enough to personhood to warrant some protections, if the government decides that it is warranted.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton ran afoul of both the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the abortion debate Sunday when she said constitutional rights do not apply to an “unborn person” or “child.”

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights,” Mrs. Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Now that doesn’t mean that we don’t do everything we possibly can in the vast majority of instances to, you know, help a mother who is carrying a child and wants to make sure that child will be healthy, to have appropriate medical support.”
Hillary Clinton: 'Unborn person' has no constitutional rights - Washington Times


What a dope!

Just because a truth is unpleasant does it make it wrong.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,839
Reaction score
26,682
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Reasonable restrictions are allowed because the right to privacy, like all rights, is not unlimited and it can be limited when the government is pursuing a legitimate interest. In this case, the government can claim a legitimate interest in protecting a fetus that has obtained viability because it is close enough to personhood to warrant some protections, if the government decides that it is warranted.

Also, abortions past the 20 week gestation mark up to viability age are much more dangerous for the woman.
They are for medical reasons because of maternal Health or fetal abnormalities.
She will still have to go through the same type of contractions as childbirth , only much more painful , both physically and mentally because before the contractions are induced the fetus ( by law) must be deceased.

According to an old Fox News article only about 100 abortions a year take place after 24 weeks gestation.
They are the extreme cases to save the woman's life or prevent irreparable damage to a major bodily function ( such as stroke , heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, etc) if the pregnancy continued.
 
Last edited:

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,839
Reaction score
26,682
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Why should there be 'reasonable restrictions' in the third trimester? If only the woman has rights and not the thing inside her, why should the rights of the woman be 'restricted?'

Its good to see liberal politicians finally asked questions about their positions on abortion for a change.

Restrictions are there not only because of the states interest in the potential life of the unborn after viability but because of the interest in the woman's life. See my post number #13( right above ) for more info on risk of women's life during abortions past 20 weeks gestation.
 
Last edited:

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,770
Reaction score
20,451
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I appreciate that advocates of abortion would be loathe to have anyone on the left actually admit that pre-birth, a fetus is a child/person because they live in a world where they take comfort from insisting that pre-birth, the developing life is but a glob of cells that magically becomes a person/child only when severed from its host.

Most thinking and feeling people can and do have a more advanced appreciation for life in all its forms. Denial is an integral part of the abortion lobby.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,371
Reaction score
29,922
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It was not very bright of her to use the word "person" in that context. After all, it is "persons" that the Due Process Clauses of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit government from depriving of life without due process of law.

She should have said "glob of tissue" or "cellular mass".
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,186
Reaction score
21,597
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I appreciate that advocates of abortion would be loathe to have anyone on the left actually admit that pre-birth, a fetus is a child/person because they live in a world where they take comfort from insisting that pre-birth, the developing life is but a glob of cells that magically becomes a person/child only when severed from its host.

Most thinking and feeling people can and do have a more advanced appreciation for life in all its forms. Denial is an integral part of the abortion lobby.

Born children lack many constitutional rights. What's wrong with what she said?
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
19,127
Reaction score
6,935
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I appreciate that advocates of abortion would be loathe to have anyone on the left actually admit that pre-birth, a fetus is a child/person because they live in a world where they take comfort from insisting that pre-birth, the developing life is but a glob of cells that magically becomes a person/child only when severed from its host. Most thinking and feeling people can and do have a more advanced appreciation for life in all its forms. Denial is an integral part of the abortion lobby.

I appreciate that advocates of severely restricted/ abolish abortion will warp the issue as badly as they do. It isn't MAGIC- it is VIABILITY- :doh

Not viability with massive medical intervention and severe birth handicaps- but viability where the fetus can stand a good chance of living and developing into a healthy, 'normal' person.

We who support a woman's right to choose don't think a person begins with it's first breath so quit making crap up... :roll:

Given the reaction to declaring a fetus not to VIABILITY doesn't have Constitutional Rights as well as the lies told about when most of us who support a woman's right to chose when it comes to where to draw the line on abortion....

It isn't denial that clouds this issue- it is anti-choice falsehoods and outright lies... :peace
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,839
Reaction score
26,682
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I appreciate that advocates of abortion would be loathe to have anyone on the left actually admit that pre-birth, a fetus is a child/person because they live in a world where they take comfort from insisting that pre-birth, the developing life is but a glob of cells that magically becomes a person/child only when severed from its host.

Most thinking and feeling people can and do have a more advanced appreciation for life in all its forms. Denial is an integral part of the abortion lobby.

According to US code an unborn is not a human being/child/individual/person.
But that does mean pro choice people think an unborn is "but a glob of cells "( your words not mine ).
I value the unborn life , I just value the woman's life and her right to Religious Liberty and access to a legal elective abortion
within the parameters of Roe v Wade.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,770
Reaction score
20,451
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Born children lack many constitutional rights. What's wrong with what she said?

Why to you assume I have a problem with what Hillary Clinton had to say? In fact, it's one of the few things she's said that I happen to agree with. My point is that those who speak of the unborn are loathe to use such terms as "person" and "child". I think it was refreshing and I appreciate that she can actually view the unborn as human entities, even if she believes they shouldn't have any rights.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,770
Reaction score
20,451
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I appreciate that advocates of severely restricted/ abolish abortion will warp the issue as badly as they do. It isn't MAGIC- it is VIABILITY- :doh

Not viability with massive medical intervention and severe birth handicaps- but viability where the fetus can stand a good chance of living and developing into a healthy, 'normal' person.

We who support a woman's right to choose don't think a person begins with it's first breath so quit making crap up... :roll:

Given the reaction to declaring a fetus not to VIABILITY doesn't have Constitutional Rights as well as the lies told about when most of us who support a woman's right to chose when it comes to where to draw the line on abortion....

It isn't denial that clouds this issue- it is anti-choice falsehoods and outright lies... :peace

The vast majority of abortions today in America have zero to do with viability - they are performed long before there is any concern about viability, so take your own advice and stop making crap up.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,770
Reaction score
20,451
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
According to US code an unborn is not a human being/child/individual/person.
But that does mean pro choice people think an unborn is "but a glob of cells "( your words not mine ).
I value the unborn life , I just value the woman's life and her right to Religious Liberty and access to a legal elective abortion
within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

Good morning Minnie - hope you're well,

I'm sure you'd acknowledge that many in the DP forums on abortion do, indeed, refer to the unborn as simply a glob of cells, if not by those exact words. And yes, there is a difference between what a legal interpretation of the unborn would be as opposed to what a moral interpretation of the unborn would be.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
19,127
Reaction score
6,935
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The vast majority of abortions today in America have zero to do with viability - they are performed long before there is any concern about viability, so take your own advice and stop making crap up.

Not even close to the point... :doh

YOU used the term MAGICALLY becomes a person when it pops the chute... it isn't MAGIC it is all about VIABILITY in determining when a fetus is considered a person vs a 'blob'... :roll:

Of course the vast majority of abortions are before viability- that's the LAW. You need to read what you post... :peace
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,839
Reaction score
26,682
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Good morning Minnie - hope you're well,

I'm sure you'd acknowledge that many in the DP forums on abortion do, indeed, refer to the unborn as simply a glob of cells, if not by those exact words. And yes, there is a difference between what a legal interpretation of the unborn would be as opposed to what a moral interpretation of the unborn would be.

Good morning , CanadaJohn-hope you are well also.

The glob of cells and like reference seems to be used most often by the pro life side for emotional reasons.
A very early miscarriage ( my early miscarriage at about 5 to 6 weeks ) may look like that to many.
Mine was like a heavy period with some thicker tissue that looked like clots.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,770
Reaction score
20,451
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Not even close to the point... :doh

YOU used the term MAGICALLY becomes a person when it pops the chute... it isn't MAGIC it is all about VIABILITY in determining when a fetus is considered a person vs a 'blob'... :roll:

Of course the vast majority of abortions are before viability- that's the LAW. You need to read what you post... :peace

So you must believe that a fetus beyond the legal stage for abortions, because viability is not just a legal term, but not yet birthed, is no longer simply as some would say a parasite feeding off the female host who happens to be pregnant with it. I'm curious why you would feel a fetus past the 22 weeks, or whatever a particular jurisdiction's cut off date for legal abortion may by, is "viable" and if you believe that such a "viable" fetus has rights before birthed. You are, after all, claiming that viability is the determining factor.
 
Top Bottom