• 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...

notquiteright 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... :peace
Click to expand...

You are showing everyone here just how weak your game is. Because you can't refute arguments you disagree with using facts and reasoning, you have to fall back on the cheap, lazy ploy of calling them "lies." That self-righteous, intolerant tactic is the norm among people who share your views. They seem to imagine they are the font and source of all truth on this complex philosophical question. They are not.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm well thank you - a little snowed in here this morning, but otherwise fine.

We have a differing view on which side uses the clinical descriptors for the unborn, but that's a minor point.
 
notquiteright said:
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
Click to expand...

So, just to be clear, once a child in the womb is 'viable' it has rights. Is that your position?
 
MrT said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is very vague. But to use your logic, once a fetus reaches viability, a 'reasonable' restriction would be to ban any attempt to abort the child. If that is your position, it makes sense
 
Fletch said:
That is very vague. But to use your logic, once a fetus reaches viability, a 'reasonable' restriction would be to ban any attempt to abort the child. If that is your position, it makes sense
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe that is consistent with Supreme Court precedent - although the Constitution still requires that the law be as narrowly tailored as possible to protect that compelling governmental interest. It should also be noted that the Government's interest in protecting the potential human life is a bit less tangible and defensible than it's interest in protecting the health of the mother - another justification for late term bans.

In either case, a law that outright banned third trimester abortions, even without considering the health of the mother, would likely be unconstitutional.
 
MrT said:
Yes, I believe that is consistent with Supreme Court precedent - although the Constitution still requires that the law be as narrowly tailored as possible to protect that compelling governmental interest. It should also be noted that the Government's interest in protecting the potential human life is a bit less tangible and defensible than it's interest in protecting the health of the mother - another justification for late term bans.

In either case, a law that outright banned third trimester abortions, even without considering the health of the mother, would likely be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Ok, I don't disagree with a lot of that except for the last part. If you have viable human life--viable meaning able to live outside the mother--then I don't see how abortion could ever be a legal and certainly not a moral choice. Induce birth if you must but abortion at that point should be out of the question.
 
Fletch said:
Ok, I don't disagree with a lot of that except for the last part. If you have viable human life--viable meaning able to live outside the mother--then I don't see how abortion could ever be a legal and certainly not a moral choice. Induce birth if you must but abortion at that point should be out of the question.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I am not a doctor and that I do not know the terminology well enough to answer whether it is possible to have a viable fetus that will still pose a significant health risk to the mother. It seems reasonable to believe that could happen and if a doctor came to me and said the fetus in my wife could survive, but carrying it to term or inducing the birth now would both pose a severe risk for my wife, then I would not want the government to make that decision for her and myself.
 
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hillary defended partial birth abortion, a particularly gruesome and ghoulish way to kill a child. That's pretty far out there.
 
MickeyW said:
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!
Click to expand...

Huh. So Hillary agrees with Trump that we should keep the current laws. Good to know.
 
Kal'Stang said:
: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.
Click to expand...

Words have meaning. Calling something a person indicates that it is, indeed, a person, or at least believed to be. To then say it has no rights is abominable. Even death row inmates have constitutional rights, such as not being subject to torture. Other rights are forfeited, but not all.
 
Citizen.Seven said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed and I think she has a brain problem....maybe from a stroke. She has been making a lot of gaffes the past year or two.......

I think a full diagnostic needs to be done by medical professionals on these politicians, including a CAT scan and MRI...............just before election day.
 
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that it's just another black mark against her.......but the "head in sand" apologists, will continue to ignore all the bad crap stacking up against her and vote for her anyway....

Why? Because liberalism trumps all else!!! Logic and common sense be damned!
 
Kal'Stang said:
: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.
Click to expand...

Honest???? From the biggest LIAR in politics today? Really?
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Abortion of a living, healthy fetus, is murder.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...


You got that right!
 
Kal'Stang said:
Context is far more important. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Not from a Clinton, who speak with forked tongue!

Redress said:
Well, at least she is legally correct and has a more rational position than, say, Trump...
Click to expand...

No she doesn't. Hillary Clinton is a fraud, liar and criminal. But hey, you just keep ignoring those facts.
 
MrT said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, the government should have nothing to say about reproductive rights, unless there is a crime committed...such as an abortion.

Many states still charge double murder, if a pregnant women is murdered and the baby dies as well. I think that is an absolutely fair argument and sound law.
Those babies feel pain, when butchered by an abortionist...even in the first trimester.
 
What this little slip up showed is that somewhere in her mind she thinks the unborn is a person. I imagine she is denying it for political reasons.
 
joG said:
Just because a truth is unpleasant does it make it wrong.
Click to expand...

Depends on who is considering the Truth and the lack of logic by that person. In an assault(rape, beating, murder, etc.)....when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Police Protection is an oxymoron and your first line of defense, is yourself. It's an unpleasant Truth, and yet people will rail against gun owners who want to defend themselves.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I submit that the Fox news article if full of crap! That 100 figure, is way low and sometimes just for convenience.
 
canadajohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I fully agree......................................in total!
 
American said:
She should have said "glob of tissue" or "cellular mass".
Click to expand...


Haaaaaaaaaaaaa. Too funny. That would make her sound like the ruthless, heartless bitch, that she really is! ;)
 
notquiteright 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... :peace
Click to expand...

Noooo..........it's putting a woman's rights, over that of the unborn baby....period. And that baby is a living being. If that baby is healthy and strong at say 12 weeks, and there are no health problems for either the mother, or the baby, any abortion after, barring unforeseen medical issues, then that abortion is for convenience and a living being should not be murdered for convenience.
 
minnie616 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but I've never agreed with R v W and think it is a travesty of justice.

CanadaJohn 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.
Click to expand...

There is nothing about Hillary that I like....never has been.....since I first heard her speak on 60 Minutes in 1992.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...


Precisely!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom