Posted on 04/03/2016 11:30:33 AM PDT by rdl6989
If a woman has the right to choose, then a man who causes a miscarriage can’t logically be held responsible for manslaughter...
Kettle meet black
Goose/Gander...
Could you please provide any statements Cruz has made about whether a woman should pay a penalty for getting an abortion if at some point in the future abortion is illegal? I can’t seem to find anything about his comments since the issue arose.
Hillary won’t have rights in eternal hell either.
“Whenever I hear pro aborters talk about a “woman’s right to choose” they NEVER mention the babies right to LIVE..apparently in the mind of a liberal loon, babies don’t have rights..they never did..so in their mind, a woman has a right to murder their child but the baby doesn’t have any right to LIVE a life..yet people were upset with Trump for saying these women deserve “Punishment” Id go further than that, lock them away and throw away the key! Murder is murder..PERIOD!”
Couldn’t agree more.....murder is murder and I wonder how all these liberals who are so far ahead of us peons here in the ‘hinderland’ who value life, are going to try to justify the murder of babies to GOD when they go before HIM to account for their actions and beliefs. I know that I have PLENTY to answer for, but advocating abortion isn’t one of them. I shall ALWAYS BELIEVE that life begins at conception.
“Before you were in the womb, I knew you” said the Lord to the Prophet Jeremiah. So in the eyes of He who created even wombat Hillary...you have God given rights. Lot’s of luck with the Lord when you stand before the mercy seat you worthless witchy woman.
ps ...He’s not real keen on lesbians either....just saying
LEX
I'm not sure that her language comports with the Court's dicta. (Was your account really suspended?)
See post #31
If I remember correctly, the SCOTUS referred to unborn humans as merely the "unborn," further distancing the rhetoric with phrases such as "terminating the pregnancy" and "right to an abortion."
Mrs. Clinton has jumped the shark saying that the pre partum entity is a person..
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$$...
Because she hates children, loves abortion.
Look, hackers are going to hack their way in -- what difference does it make The question is, how much would they pay to save themselves the time? Taking the money always worked for Bill when he had secrets rich foreigners wanted, and we still left the White House flat broke. Who knows where it goes?
Good one!!
Nailed it! God bless you.
Well, at least this absolutely blew up on her in the media, with reporters, and both Republicans and Democrats attacking her 24/7 for saying such an ugly, brutal thing.
Oh, wait...
Comrade Grandma admits too much. If the unborn is a “person” which is the term she is using, then the unborn has a 14th Amendment RIGHT to life, liberty and property which MUST be enforced by each and every state and federal courts have no authority to disagree. Even Herod Blackmun said so in his infamous Roe vs. Wade abomination of a decision.
I’m hard pressed to determine what your statements have to do with my post.
You stated that Cruz could easily articulate the argument to answer the question “should a woman be charged with a crime if in the future abortion is illegal”. So my question is, why hasn’t he if indeed he hasn’t since the discussion arose.
What if it was an unborn Mexican?
All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
No, my account has never been suspended. In the time I've been posting here, I've been told to "knock it off" once or twice, and I had one stupid vanity pulled - it deserved to be pulled, I posted it as a form of mocking a spate of stupid vanities.
I put up the practical joke "banned" page IIRC, during the Harriet Miers dispute here. It's fooled a handful of people ;-)
You have no idea how evil. If her grandchild was born as a breech birth it would have been perfectly legal in some states to evacuate the brain and abort the child. If her grandchild was born head first as normal and the child was born this way, you could not do the same procedure as once the baby has drawn one breath it has legal rights as a human being.
In effect, the same baby can be killed if born as a breech birth but not if a normal birth. That is the reason the abortionist will try and turn the fetus in the womb to cause a breech birth.
This is ugly business.
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.
