Posted on 04/03/2016 7:35:14 AM PDT by Nachum
On Sunday, Hillary Clinton told Chuck Todd that no unborn child has constitutional rights.
"The unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights," under our current laws, said Clinton. She also said that "the woman's right to make decisions" is most important when it comes to abortion.
Most notable perhaps is Clinton's use of "person." Oftentimes, when talking about a woman's right to choose, pro-choicers will use terminology that suggests the unborn is not a person or human, but a "fetus."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Gosh, Hillary. When you told Webb Hubbell you were pregnant with Chelsea, did you say, “We’re going to have a baby!” or did you say, “We’re going to have a fetus!”?
It does make a difference.
How about when someone shoots the mother and kills her unborn baby? Isn’t he charged with murder?
The pro-life take makes no sense.
That's why I contend that those who speak for the concept have been co-opted. They didn't even mention the fate of the unborn child.
While not in The Constitution itself, This phrase should ring a bell even to the disbarred Madam Benghazi as one of the founding principles:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Or the unborn person is sometimes referred to as "tissue". That is always a good one.
As such, by her own words, she is abortion on demand, no restrictions...as ANY pregnancy, throughout the entire pregnancy, could be considered a risk to the health of the mother...she and the death lobby know it, and have killed scores of innocents by adhering to their cultist culture doctrines while effectively being protected by fellow cultists in media/academia/judiciary.
...yep, the same group that continues to redefine child birth as a burden, rather than a blessing in the minds of(particularity)young women.
Her and her ilk are the personification of evil...believing the world begins and ends with them.
...if America has lowered itself enough(morally)to elect this filth(post Obama)...it deserves every negative judgement it gets.
“If she isn’t indicted and becomes the nominee and then POTUS, I will never ever forgive this government for as long as I live.”
I agree. I will never forgive this country for electing Buckwheat in 2008. Every election cycle we hear the usual nuts like Gorge Looney and Miley Cyrus threatening to leave the US if _________ gets elected. It’s a shame that few if any actually do. I said the same thing before Obama’s first election.
“Liberal logic: If a baby is born premature at 6 months, it has rights, if it’s not yet born, it has no rights and the mother and an abortion clinic can kill it”.
BINGO!! Sick, sick, sick...............and pure evil.
YO!
F. Chuck!
Hitlery!
Abortion is MURDER!
What is it about MURDER you don’t understand!
Also incorrect Ken, consider this law on the books...
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”.[1]
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism.
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or “unborn child” as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.[2]
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not “be construed to permit the prosecution” “of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf”, “of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child” or “of any woman with respect to her unborn child.”
If a person kills a pregnant woman, its consider double homicide.
The correct answer for Donald Trump is that the woman would not be punished for an abortion, nor would the attending physician.
This shows that Hildabeast is talking out her A$$...
Under current law, the father of the unborn child has no rights when it comes to a decision recognized by the courts. This has happened in my family.
But the father can be prosecuted for all charges and fees and even psychological counseling for the mother, even if he protests the abortion.
No.
Any pro-life Republican needs to either avoid hypothetical questions or be better prepared to answer questions about abortion.
If the mother is attacked, and her unborn child is killed, can she at least sue for ‘property damages’?
The obvious implication here is that we kill the unborn because - and only because - they have “no constitutional rights.” In other words, the only reason we don’t indiscriminately kill people after birth is that they have rights, not because of any moral considerations. With this thing as president, how easy might it be for her to strip Americans of her choosing of their constitutional rights so they might then be killed?
The more they talk, the more they reveal their true selves.
If an unborn child has no constitutional rights, then it is the mother’s property.
Just like slavery.
So if her property is damaged by an unwelcome attack, can she sue for property damages? Obviously, it would not be murder.
So the father can weigh the costs.
Oh, I just ate. Starting to feel sick.
— FRegards ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.