Whats she saying?

 

Hillary Clinton: 'Unborn person' has no constitutional rights - Washington Times

From the article:

 

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.”

The whole "constitutional personhood" debate regarding fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses has been long-debated, that's for sure.

 

Personhood In The Womb: A Constitutional Question : NPR

I didn't know this had to be said to be understood. If the fetus had constitutional rights it could not be aborted hence Roe vs. Wade never would have happened.

I didn't know this had to be said to be understood. If the fetus had constitutional rights it could not be aborted hence Roe vs. Wade never would have happened.

 

A Fetus is protected by law in nearly every instance except for the mother deciding to kill it in the womb during an abortion procedure.

 

Drunk hits a car with a pregnant woman and she loses the baby he's charged with manslaughter or murder.

 

Boyfriend punches pregnant mom and causes her to lose the baby, again charged with the death of the baby.

 

Mom's drug use leads to losing baby, she can be charged again.

Edited April 11, 201610 yr by Jumper_Dad

A Fetus is protected by law in neatly every instance except for the mother deciding to kill it in the womb during an abortion procedure.

 

Drunk hits a car with a pregnant woman and she loses the baby he's charged with manslaughter or murder.

 

Boyfriend punches pregnant mom and causes her to lose the baby, again charged with the death of the baby.

 

Mom's drug use leads to losing baby, she can be charged again.

 

Exactly. Which makes legal abortion completely illogical. It's a fetus, not a child with abortion. It's a child, a human life, in everything else.

Old hag would sacrifice her momma to get elected , let alone someone she doesn't know.

A Fetus is protected by law in neatly every instance except for the mother deciding to kill it in the womb during an abortion procedure.

 

Drunk hits a car with a pregnant woman and she loses the baby he's charged with manslaughter or murder.

 

Boyfriend punches pregnant mom and causes her to lose the baby, again charged with the death of the baby.

 

Mom's drug use leads to losing baby, she can be charged again.

 

This is a great post. Full of truth. Something the left is not well versed at.

This is a great post. Full of truth. Something the left is not well versed at.

 

This is proven by the lack of our friends from the Left trying to discredit it.

A Fetus is protected by law in neatly every instance except for the mother deciding to kill it in the womb during an abortion procedure.

 

Drunk hits a car with a pregnant woman and she loses the baby he's charged with manslaughter or murder.

 

Boyfriend punches pregnant mom and causes her to lose the baby, again charged with the death of the baby.

 

Mom's drug use leads to losing baby, she can be charged again.

 

Maybe those charged in the above mentioned crimes should argue "but you would let the mother get an abortion."

This is a great post. Full of truth. Something the left is not well versed at.

 

I forgot that we are all liars as well.:lol:

I forgot that we are all liars as well.:lol:

 

Not taking the bait. This was not directed at you nor any poster on here. Nice try though.

Why do some of you want to be so divisive? You continually paint "the other side" with a broad, dismissive brush. Is it that you don't actually want discussion or you just get more pleasure out of your own side slapping you on the back when you come up with a good put down?

 

I'm a discussion person. That's why I used to love BGP. It prompted open discussion between multiple sides of an issue. There were several times when this discussion brought me to a different conclusion on an issue than I started with. Now, it's just put downs, baiting and back slapping. If that's your goal, then congratulations. You've succeeded.

Why do some of you want to be so divisive? You continually paint "the other side" with a broad, dismissive brush. Is it that you don't actually want discussion or you just get more pleasure out of your own side slapping you on the back when you come up with a good put down?

 

I'm a discussion person. That's why I used to love BGP. It prompted open discussion between multiple sides of an issue. There were several times when this discussion brought me to a different conclusion on an issue than I started with. Now, it's just put downs, baiting and back slapping. If that's your goal, then congratulations. You've succeeded.

 

This.

 

I'm a discussion person. That's why I used to love BGP. It prompted open discussion between multiple sides of an issue. There were several times when this discussion brought me to a different conclusion on an issue than I started with. Now, it's just put downs, baiting and back slapping. If that's your goal, then congratulations. You've succeeded.

 

This a million times over. It's absolutely ruined multiple forums on here. Use to love coming to BGP to discuss all sorts of topics. Now, unless it's to talk sports, there's no discussion to be found here. Really sad to see the decline.