Hillary: some persons more equal than others.

D

Darth Omar

Russian asset
The dust had hardly settled after Trump's abortion gaffe, when as if on cue, Hillary pipes up and asserts that human fetus' are persons after all.

When asked by Meet the Press moderater Chuck Todd if an unborn child has rights, Clinton said this:

"Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights." [Hillary]

Certain persons in this country don't have rights under the constitution? Really? If illegal immigrants have rights, then why not unborn persons?

Maybe Hillary and Trump are closer on this issue than either of them realize lol.
 
Celticguy said:
The infanticide crowd are in a snit over her use of unborn person.
Click to expand...

They do well to be. This is actually a bigger gaffe than Trump's.

If abortion is murder it begs the question of who to charge. But if you are aborting, aka killing unborn persons, WHY ISNT IT?? murder..?

But since Hillary isn't Trump and the media has a pro-abortion bent, the infanticide crowd can hope it goes away.

And I'll have to keep bumping the thread up at JPP lol.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The dust had hardly settled after Trump's abortion gaffe, when as if on cue, Hillary pipes up and asserts that human fetus' are persons after all.

When asked by Meet the Press moderater Chuck Todd if an unborn child has rights, Clinton said this:

"Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights." [Hillary]

Certain persons in this country don't have rights under the constitution? Really? If illegal immigrants have rights, then why not unborn persons?

Maybe Hillary and Trump are closer on this issue than either of them realize lol.
Click to expand...

Spics vote for the democrat party. Unborn babies do not
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
The dust had hardly settled after Trump's abortion gaffe, when as if on cue, Hillary pipes up and asserts that human fetus' are persons after all.

When asked by Meet the Press moderater Chuck Todd if an unborn child has rights, Clinton said this:

"Well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights." [Hillary]

Certain persons in this country don't have rights under the constitution? Really? If illegal immigrants have rights, then why not unborn persons?

Maybe Hillary and Trump are closer on this issue than either of them realize lol.
Click to expand...


She stated a fact about the way things ARE currently, not the way things should be.
 
Jarod said:
I think at some point during gestation, yes. I don't consider a fertilized ovum a person, but a fully formed fetus.. Yes.
Click to expand...

You realize 'fully formed' happens pretty early, right?

Keep it up and they'll start calling you an anti-choice extremist lol.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
You realize 'fully formed' happens pretty early, right?

Keep it up and they'll start calling you an anti-choice extremist lol.
Click to expand...


As a parent of three, who watched the formation via a LOT of sonograms, I can tell you from a visual perspective, fully formed is certainly not in the first three months.
 
Jarod said:
As a parent of three, who watched the formation via a LOT of sonograms, I can tell you from a visual perspective, fully formed is certainly not in the first three months.
Click to expand...

But that leaves 6 months and plenty of time for you to earn the label. Are you suggesting that the Roe v Wade sanctions murder, since it's legal to abort human fetus' much later than three months?
 
Remain-Silent-600-LA.jpg



LOL
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Care to expound?
Click to expand...

The reasoning in R v. W is very sound. Its not about murder v. non-murder. There is a lot of it that is not about the personhood of a fetus or ovum. IT is about conflicting rights and what to do about them. A reading of R v. W would indicate that the point of viability is when the right to life of the Fetus supersedes the right of a woman to control her medical decisions.

R. v. W. has aged, and I think it would be time for the S. Ct. to take the issue up again and put it back into focus. They indicated there is a point in a pregnancy when the legality of abortions could be determined by States but under modern medical technology that point should be reevaluated. I still believe strongly that the legal reasoning of R. v. W. is solid and fundamental to American freedom, but the facts surrounding the result have changed a bit.

In my opinion, the right to freedom of the mother supersedes the right to life of an ovum or developing fetus until about the third or fourth month, unless the health or life of the woman is in serious jeopardy, at that point the woman should retain her right of freedom to make her own medical decisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top