Clinton: Unborn Children Don't 'Have Constitutional Rights';

[yota691]

Clinton: Unborn Children Don't 'Have Constitutional Rights';  Published on Apr 3, 2016

[pattyangel]

This is so sad and sickening to know that these candidates will do, and say anything to be elected.  No matter if it violates ones conscience. To mandate for Christians to pay for murder, for someone to perform abortions, is wrong in the eyes of God our Creator. 

Hildabeast literally stated that this little being is a "PERSON and CHILD" 

For her to arrogantly deny the rights of an individual, that is drawn out in the Constitution, is a person with the intent to gain nothing but votes and force us to pay for murder.  She is leading her pack into a heinous, cold hearted conscience.   She has no conscience, integrity or morals. 

She'll hook and crook to get votes, don't count on her to change the laws that doesn't benefits her.

Edited April 5, 2016 by pattyangel

[George Hayduke]

Unless she repents, this world, along with all of her delusions, will be as close to Heaven as she will ever get...

[RV ME]

Disgusting the way people can rationalize anything to suit their perspective.  I read the article linked below and was nauseated by the means the pro-abortion fanatics will stoop to avoid calling a baby in womb a baby.

“The guidebook also advises against the terms “baby,” “dead fetus,” “unborn baby” or “unborn child” when discussing what it is that’s being aborted. Instead, it recommends the terms “embryo,” “fetus” and “the pregnancy.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/Hillarious-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “A turd by any other name still smells like crap”.

 

I have posed this question before, but never received an answer.  Imagine a woman driving to Planned Parenthood to have an abortion.  On her way she is T-boned by a drunk driver and killed.  In my (and most other) states the drunk driver would be charged with two counts of vehicular homicide one for the mother and one for the baby.  Now imagine the same woman driving home from Planned Parenthood after having her abortion and getting T-boned and killed by the drunk driver.  In this scenario the driver is only charged with one count of homicide.  Either way, the end result is the same, a dead woman and a dead baby.  So what happened to the other homicide charge?

[Sage449]

Sadly and shamefully they believe what they tout and lie about - I've a friend whose father indicated to me that it's just tissue - and nothing more - not a baby. I always wonder why when it is wanted, its a baby - when it isn't, its just junk - nothing - something to be sloughed off.

I've enough of my own sins to worry about - but I cannot begin to imagine what is in store for Hillarious and her minions. Horrors.........

[gymrat76541]

I can not help myself.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! If the woman was on the way to a legal abortion clinic then the child was not far enough along to be termed "a baby" yet.

As per the definition of "life" by the law!

OK, lets hear it?

[RV ME]

8 hours ago, gymrat76541 said:

I can not help myself.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! If the woman was on the way to a legal abortion clinic then the child was not far enough along to be termed "a baby" yet.

As per the definition of "life" by the law!

OK, lets hear it?

Sorry rat, you should have helped yourself.  You seem to have fallen prey to the language manipulation that was illuminated in the link I posted.  In my and many other states, third trimester abortions are legal.  I do not know anyone who argues that a baby in womb for 7 months or longer is not “viable”, unless of course they are attempting to rationalize the killing of said baby.

 

In your view, how far along must a baby develop before you consider it alive?  Whatever the answer, that is just your opinion.  When it comes to the law, the correct answer varies considerably.

 

The states vary in their treatment of the killing of unborn children. In some states, there is no criminal liability for the death of an unborn child because the child is not considered to be a "person," within the meaning of the law, that is, it is not "alive" or "viable" at the time of the death.

 

In some states, however, an unborn child can be considered a "person" for purposes of a state's vehicular homicide law…… specifically include the death of an unborn child who is "in the womb at any stage of its development”.  In other states, the laws base criminal liability for the death of a fetus upon certain factors, such as "viability." In such states, an unborn child is not a "person" if it is not "viable," that is, able to remain alive outside of the womb. 

 

http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/vehicular-homicide-laws-and-the-unborn-child.html

 

According to “medical experts” viability can be as little as 22 weeks, but the majority use 24 weeks.  So a baby carried for 6 months is considered a alive, and abortions are still somehow allowed well after 6 months.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/health/premature-babies-22-weeks-viability-study.html?_r=0

 

So now you have heard it, care to try to refute it? 

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by RV ME

[Shabibilicious]

13 hours ago, RV ME said:

I have posed this question before, but never received an answer.  Imagine a woman driving to Planned Parenthood to have an abortion.  On her way she is T-boned by a drunk driver and killed.  In my (and most other) states the drunk driver would be charged with two counts of vehicular homicide one for the mother and one for the baby.  Now imagine the same woman driving home from Planned Parenthood after having her abortion and getting T-boned and killed by the drunk driver.  In this scenario the driver is only charged with one count of homicide.  Either way, the end result is the same, a dead woman and a dead baby.  So what happened to the other homicide charge?

I have a question to your question.  If the woman was on her way to have her baby killed anyway.......why should the drunk driver be held accountable for the baby's death?  It seems like the drunk driver should only be held accountable for the baby's death if the mom-to-be planned on having the child and loving it forever.  Just my thoughts.  

GO RV, then BV

Edited April 6, 2016 by Shabibilicious

[Sage449]

Hi Gym - man's law doesn't trump or negate God's law - regardless of who or how you believe, in the end, only God's will prevail and stand. The rest is mere dust.

[George Hayduke]

7 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

I have a question to your question.  If the woman was on her way to have her baby killed anyway.......why should the drunk driver be held accountable for the baby's death?  It seems like the drunk driver should only be held accountable for the baby's death if the mom-to-be planned on having the child and loving it forever.  Just my thoughts.  

First - the female driver is not a 'mom-to-be'.  She became a mother the moment the child was conceived.  She is a mother expecting childbirth enroute to a medical facility that will legally kill that child.

But. more to your point about the drunk drivers accountability.  I believe it has to do with timing.  Even though she was in route to kill her child, the act still had not yet occurred leaving her the opportunity to change her mind before she arrived.  However, that choice was taken from her by a negligent drunk driver.

[moose 57]

[RV ME]

10 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

I have a question to your question.  If the woman was on her way to have her baby killed anyway.......why should the drunk driver be held accountable for the baby's death?  It seems like the drunk driver should only be held accountable for the baby's death if the mom-to-be planned on having the child and loving it forever.  Just my thoughts.  

GO RV, then BV

In America, I did not realize that if a person (specifically your mother) did not want you then you were not entitled to your life.  Maybe it was changed to “A wanted life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” and I missed it.  You ask why the drunk driver should be charged with the baby’s death, many others ask why the butchers ay Planned Parenthood are not charged with murder.  The answer to both, like it or not, is it’s the law.  Clearly conflicting statutes, but that is the way it currently is.

Instead of looking at the issue from the mothers point of view, how about from the baby’s perspective.  I do not know of any babies that did not want to live just because their mothers did not plan for, love, or want them.  Shockingly, a baby just wants to continue to live.  A dear friend of mine had preemie twins just over 6 months into her pregnancy.  If you have ever been around premature babies and watched them struggle and fight for life you would know that life is what is important to them, not whether the mother cared for them or not.

Using the twisted logic and  terminology like “wanted” has allowed it to become acceptable to deny treatment to a baby that had the audacity to survive an abortion (something our fearless leader refused to make illegal three times while in the IL statehouse).  After surviving the abortion, there can be no argument this is a living breathing human being.  But since mom did not want to be burdened it is acceptable to just let that newborn person die.  I hope you would agree with me on this point, that is stone cold and heartless.  But since so many in our nation have become desensitized to this kind of killing there are many who have no problem letting an “unwanted” person go without treatment and die.  If you do agree with me on this point, start at the baby’s delivery and work backwards and tell me in your opinion, at what point a baby should have the right to live.

2 hours ago, George Hayduke said:

First - the female driver is not a 'mom-to-be'.  She became a mother the moment the child was conceived.  She is a mother expecting childbirth enroute to a medical facility that will legally kill that child.

But. more to your point about the drunk drivers accountability.  I believe it has to do with timing.  Even though she was in route to kill her child, the act still had not yet occurred leaving her the opportunity to change her mind before she arrived.  However, that choice was taken from her by a negligent drunk driver.

Great answer, thanks George.  You were much more succinct than I could be.

[Shabibilicious]

13 hours ago, RV ME said:

In America, I did not realize that if a person (specifically your mother) did not want you then you were not entitled to your life.  Maybe it was changed to “A wanted life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” and I missed it.  You ask why the drunk driver should be charged with the baby’s death, many others ask why the butchers ay Planned Parenthood are not charged with murder.  The answer to both, like it or not, is it’s the law.  Clearly conflicting statutes, but that is the way it currently is.

 

Instead of looking at the issue from the mothers point of view, how about from the baby’s perspective.  I do not know of any babies that did not want to live just because their mothers did not plan for, love, or want them.  Shockingly, a baby just wants to continue to live.  A dear friend of mine had preemie twins just over 6 months into her pregnancy.  If you have ever been around premature babies and watched them struggle and fight for life you would know that life is what is important to them, not whether the mother cared for them or not.

Using the twisted logic and  terminology like “wanted” has allowed it to become acceptable to deny treatment to a baby that had the audacity to survive an abortion (something our fearless leader refused to make illegal three times while in the IL statehouse).  After surviving the abortion, there can be no argument this is a living breathing human being.  But since mom did not want to be burdened it is acceptable to just let that newborn person die.  I hope you would agree with me on this point, that is stone cold and heartless.  But since so many in our nation have become desensitized to this kind of killing there are many who have no problem letting an “unwanted” person go without treatment and die.  If you do agree with me on this point, start at the baby’s delivery and work backwards and tell me in your opinion, at what point a baby should have the right to live.

I agree with everything you said here, 100%.....I just don't understand why I always feel like you're scolding me, when I simply responded to your original question.  Rather than point your angst in my direction, perhaps it would be better to direct it at the presidential front runners....particularly, Pro Life confused flip-flopper, Donald J. Trump.  No point gnawing on the deaf ears of Hi!!ary or Bernie.  As always, just my opinion.  

So, in conclusion, WITHOUT THE PRESUMPTION THAT I'M BELITTLING THE MURDERS OF UNBORN CHILDREN, next time you pose a question and nobody answers, you'll have some idea why.

GO RV, then BV