• 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...

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

The liberal generated and massaged law, pretty much sucks in this case, just like liberal laws do, in most cases!

That baby is a person when it is conceived. Thus the abolition on continued use of illegal drugs, or any drugs and/or alcoholic beverages and smoking......and the start of Prenatal vitamins from the outset.

Also, I sure wouldn't expect my wife to be buying baby things, attend a baby shower or redecorate any room, for a viable tissue mass or any glob of cells. I mean, that would be illogical.
 
Last edited:
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.

Thank God your logic is not even remotely close to controlling policy in this country.
 
Thank God your logic is not even remotely close to controlling policy in this country.


My logic is in sync with millions of other folks..... and the country would be a lot better off if it adhered to my logic! ;)

There has never been a post that you have made, that I agreed with....there is a reason for that.
 
My logic is in sync with millions of other folks..... and the country would be a lot better off if it adhered to my logic! ;)

There has never been a post that you have made, that I agreed with....there is a reason for that.

Lack of intelligence?
 
My logic is in sync with millions of other folks.....

Millions of folks in America think that the Earth is 5,000 years old. You will need to set your standards higher.
 
Hillary defended partial birth abortion, a particularly gruesome and ghoulish way to kill a child. That's pretty far out there.

Intact D and E ( also referred to by some as partial birth abortion ) was very rarely used.
They were extreme cases.
Since the ban if a fetus is 20 week gestation or older usually a lethal injection is put into the fetal heart before contractions are induced or an extraction of the deceased fetus begins.
Though the procedure has had a low rate of use, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000 according to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey,[2] it has developed into a focal point of the abortion debate. In the United States, intact dilation and extraction of a live fetus was made illegal in most circumstances by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inta...and_extraction

Partial Birth abortion was rarely used and it meant the fetus did not have be dismembered which thus it helped to prevent damage to the woman's cervix.
These were extreme cases and as I said very rarely done but most people today do not understand it was most often done to keep the woman safe from damage to the cervix because of dismemberment.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the government should have nothing to say about reproductive rights, unless there is a crime committed...such as an abortion. ...

Legal abortion within the parameters of Roe v Wade is not crime in the US.
 
I submit that the Fox news article if full of crap! That 100 figure, is way low and sometimes just for convenience.

And you are most likely mistaken.

I will agree that past the 20 week gestation there are more because our laws in the US allow for abortions up to 24 weeks for severe fetal abnormalities , or if the unborn is not viable.( will be stillborn or will only live a few minutes or hours).

There are only 3 clinics and 4 doctors in all the US that perform legal clinic abortions past 24 weeks gestation.

In 2008 Kansas had a clinic that performed legal abortion for these extreme cases.
Doctors from all over the US would send their patients who had these extreme tragic pregnancies to Kansas for their abortions.

Kansas kept a record of all abortions that took place at or after 22 weeks gestation ( the Fox News article was those after 24 gestation )

There were 323 abortions that took place in Kansas at or after 22 weeks gestation in 2008.
131 were because the fetus was non viable ( would be stillborn or would only live a few minutes or hours)
192 were because irreparable damage to a major bodily function ( such as stoke, heart attack, paralysis from the neck down , etc.) would occur if the pregnancy continued.

Please see page 8 for the 2008 Kansas abortion stats past 22 weeks gestation

http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/abortion_sum/08itop1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Hillary defended partial birth abortion, a particularly gruesome and ghoulish way to kill a child. That's pretty far out there.

Clever sound bite, but meaningless without a link to her exact words and full context. My guess is that she has said something along the lines of third trimester abortions should only be used when the life/health of the mother is at stake, or the fetus has been irreparably damaged in some way.
 
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!

How can a statement that is undeniably true and legally correct be a "black mark" against anyone? Honestly, the hatred-run-wild rhetoric is seriously unstable around here.
 
Intact D and E ( also referred to by some as partial birth abortion ) was very rarely used.

:shrug: that's not really an argument against it's extreme nature. Child Rape is also rare - that's not an argument in favor of its legality.
 
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.

she was legally incorrect.... legally speaking, there is no such thing as an unborn person.

personhood is bestowed by the magical rights' giving birth canal, or it's suitable alternative...if it's unborn, it's not a person... legally speaking.
 
Clever sound bite, but meaningless without a link to her exact words and full context. My guess is that she has said something along the lines of third trimester abortions should only be used when the life/health of the mother is at stake, or the fetus has been irreparably damaged in some way.

She had a 100% NARAL rating, and opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I'm sure she always does remember to bring in language about "oh life and health of the mother" when discussing why she wants to keep partial birth abortion available for the widest possible set of circumstances - it allows her to sound reasonable while taking an extremist stand. She suggests that she supports restrictions, but won't/can't actually come out and name any.

So yeah. When you're standing in favor of pulling a baby partially out so that you can shove scissors into it's skull, that's extreme.
 
:shrug: that's not really an argument against it's extreme nature. Child Rape is also rare - that's not an argument in favor of its legality.

And now when doctors still need to abort and remove the fetus intact they make sure that that there is no longer a heartbeat before starting contractions or extracting the fetus.

Usually a fatal shot is injected into the heart if the fetus still has a heartbeat.

When I miscarried at 20 weeks gestation and the ER scheduled me to have an intact D and E ( before partial birth abortions were banned ) the fetus was already dead and I was no longer pregnant.

Luckily for me my body expelled the dead fetus on its own the night before the scheduled surgery.

The sad part was I accidentally saw it and how malformed it was.
My doctor later told me that even if I had carried it longer it never would lived and that pathology said they could even tell if it was a boy or a girl.
 
She had a 100% NARAL rating, and opposed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. I'm sure she always does remember to bring in language about "oh life and health of the mother" when discussing why she wants to keep partial birth abortion available for the widest possible set of circumstances - it allows her to sound reasonable while taking an extremist stand. She suggests that she supports restrictions, but won't/can't actually come out and name any.

So yeah. When you're standing in favor of pulling a baby partially out so that you can shove scissors into it's skull, that's extreme.

That's a completely emotional, and incorrect, statement. No woman deliberately carries a child for six months while planning a third trimester abortion for kicks and giggles, and no reputable physician would perform such a procedure on a healthy woman carrying a healthy, potentially viable, child. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare, and only performed in the most dire circumstances. As has been repeatedly explained, and ignored, the child's heart is stopped before the process begins, so there is no "silent scream" with a live infant being rendered asunder, and is extracted intact either via cesarean or through forced labor.

For me, the extremist position is in forcing a woman to die rather than continue a pregnancy that has for some unforeseen reason become a severe threat to her life, or forcing her to continue carrying a severely malformed infant to term when there is no scientific possibility said infant would survive at all.
 
she was legally incorrect.... legally speaking, there is no such thing as an unborn person.

personhood is bestowed by the magical rights' giving birth canal, or it's suitable alternative...if it's unborn, it's not a person... legally speaking.

Really, that's just a meaningless technicality. If anything, the pro-rights side should applaud her verbiage as accurately and precisely reflecting the humanity of the unborn.

But, instead, they'll probably just try to abuse it as a political weapon.
 
Really, that's just a meaningless technicality. If anything, the pro-rights side should applaud her verbiage as accurately and precisely reflecting the humanity of the unborn.

But, instead, they'll probably just try to abuse it as a political weapon.

no, it's not a meaningless technicality... personhood is literally the legal basis for our rights... its why pro-choicers work so very hard to ensure the unborn are not considered persons in any aspect.

the pro-choicers are mad at her for acknowledging peronhood in the unborn..pro-lifers are mad because she opines these "unborn persons" shouldn't be afforded constitutional rights like every other person.
that's kinds why the article is about pissing both sides off....

and yes, it's election season... everything is a political weapon , for everyone.....welcome ot politics, hope you stay awhile;)
 
no, it's not a meaningless technicality... personhood is literally the legal basis for our rights... its why pro-choicers work so very hard to ensure the unborn are not considered persons in any aspect.

the pro-choicers are mad at her for acknowledging peronhood in the unborn..pro-lifers are mad because she opines these "unborn persons" shouldn't be afforded constitutional rights like every other person.
that's kinds why the article is about pissing both sides off....

and yes, it's election season... everything is a political weapon , for everyone.....welcome ot politics, hope you stay awhile;)

'Unborn human' probably would have been best.

'Unborn baby' would have been OK- a 'baby' alone implies personhood but with the qualifier 'unborn' it is clarified.

Her statement was explicit, there is no misunderstanding on the basis of using the written law definition of "person" in a colloquial, verbal, non-legal setting.
 
That's a completely emotional, and incorrect, statement. No woman deliberately carries a child for six months while planning a third trimester abortion for kicks and giggles, and no reputable physician would perform such a procedure on a healthy woman carrying a healthy, potentially viable, child. Third trimester abortions are extremely rare, and only performed in the most dire circumstances. As has been repeatedly explained, and ignored, the child's heart is stopped before the process begins, so there is no "silent scream" with a live infant being rendered asunder, and is extracted intact either via cesarean or through forced labor.

For me, the extremist position is in forcing a woman to die rather than continue a pregnancy that has for some unforeseen reason become a severe threat to her life, or forcing her to continue carrying a severely malformed infant to term when there is no scientific possibility said infant would survive at all.

well, i dunno... she did vote against the partial birth abortion ban in 2003, even though it had specific exemptions for the health of the mother included....
her reasoning then was the government shouldn't be involved at all in abortion ( though she has not been consistent with that reasoning)
I think she's made it clear she supports any abortion, at any time, for any reason.... there's really no other conclusion one can draw if they look at the facts of her record.

and well, the claim that that the procedure was rare and always used in dire circumstances is on very very shaky ground...the evidence used in a couple of cases that were used to formulate that ban in 2003 set out a very different set of facts... most notably is the testimony of Ron Fitzsimmons, head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP). and evidence presented by doctors in the stenberg trial.

in any event, this ship has sailed.. partial birth abortion have been banned for 13 years , and it includes exemptions for the health of the mother....it's a non-issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom