- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 14,012
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Location
- Southern Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.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.
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.
: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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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?
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...eace
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.
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.
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.
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...eace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?