Hillary: An Unborn Child Hours Before Delivery Has No Constitutional Rights

[BmorePat87]

(07-31-2016, 08:39 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A baby just hours before delivery is living on its own.  Just because it is still in the mother, doesn't mean that it is dependent on her.  Therefore, you're murdering a person.

That's common sense.

You're now taking two issues and merging them. You cannot have an abortion that late in a pregnancy and she isn't advocating for it. She said, under the law, you have no constitutional rights until you are born. The fact that a fetus doesn't have constitutional rights doesn't mean the courts say it is ok to abort it. 

[fredtoast]

(07-31-2016, 08:39 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: A baby just hours before delivery is living on its own.  Just because it is still in the mother, doesn't mean that it is dependent on her.  Therefore, you're murdering a person.

And Hillary would tell you that it is illegal to have an abortion at that point except in order to save the mothers life.

The reason you don't understand her comments is because you are ignorant of the laws that she understands.

[BFritz21]

(07-31-2016, 12:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And Hillary would tell you that it is illegal to have an abortion at that point except in order to save the mothers life.

The reason you don't understand her comments is because you are ignorant of the laws that she understands.

Constitution says that no one shall be deprived of life.

A baby, just hours before birth, is alive and able to live on its own.

Therefore, it does have constitutional rights.


The reason you don't understand why her comment is wrong is because you're ignorant to common sense.

[BmorePat87]

(07-31-2016, 02:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Constitution says that no one shall be deprived of life.

Without due process of law. That is your right to due process.

You may be confusing its meaning with the phrase from the Declaration that all men are endowed by their creator with the right to life. While the Declaration is a philosophical partner to the Constitution, it doesn't have the same purpose or legal standing as the Constitution. It has has a different author who has an opposing view on government.

Quote:Therefore, it does have constitutional rights.

Not according to those charged with interpreting the Constitution. The most relevant part of the Constitution in determining this may be the 14th Amendment. It states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Quote:The reason you don't understand why her comment is wrong is because you're ignorant to common sense.

The most common sense part of this may be the fact that you have to be born in order to be... born. Her statement is 100% correct. under the law, you have to be born in order to be entitled to your constitutional rights. As he and others correctly stated, this does not mean you can abort late term, not is she advocating for that in the interview. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2016, 02:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Not according to those charged with interpreting the Constitution. The most relevant part of the Constitution in determining this may be the 14th Amendment. It states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.






The most common sense part of this may be the fact that you have to be born in order to be... born. Her statement is 100% correct. under the law, you have to be born in order to be entitled to your constitutional rights. As he and others correctly stated, this does not mean you can abort late term, not is she advocating for that in the interview. 

If you notice the term Citizen is clearly described; however, the word used when talking about denial of life is person. So the issue would be when does the unborn become a person (human being). I would assume  pro illegal-immigration folks might also point to this distinction. 

Like I said earlier Clinton is not "wrong" in what she said; however if you listen to the interview (BTW, the interview is about 4 months old), she points to a woman's choice as the deciding factor, not the woman's well-being. This could leave one to believe that she would be allow an abortion to happen this late in the process.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2016, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you notice the term Citizen is clearly described; however, the word used when talking about denial of life is person. So the issue would be when does the unborn become a person (human being).

I was going to point this out as well. There is that ambiguity there that is what leaves it open for the legal interpretation.

Also, a couple of things not directed at bfine, but in general. Late term abortions are not illegal everywhere. That is a state by state situation, and there are several states, including DC, with no restrictions. and of course rights are not granted by the Constitution/government or at any particular time. The Constitution exists to protect rights we have inherently. Just something I always get nit picky about.

[Bengalzona]

(07-31-2016, 12:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The reason you don't understand her comments is because you are ignorant of the laws that she understands.

(07-31-2016, 02:23 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The reason you don't understand why her comment is wrong is because you're ignorant to common sense.

Thank you, both.

I was ignorant has to why other people were ignorant about other things in this thread.

Does that make us all enlightened now and no longer ignorant?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

We don't know where Hillary stands on abortion. All she ever says is "The law says" but she has never given her opinion. This leads me to believe that her views are even more extreme than the rest of the country and she would be ripped apart for saying what she actually thinks.

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2016, 04:34 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: We don't know where Hillary stands on abortion. All she ever says is "The law says" but she has never given her opinion. This leads me to believe that her views are even more extreme than the rest of the country and she would be ripped apart for saying what she actually thinks.

I actually go the opposite. I'd be willing to bet she is more pro-life on a personal level. Much like Kaine is.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2016, 04:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was going to point this out as well. There is that ambiguity there that is what leaves it open for the legal interpretation.

Also, a couple of things not directed at bfine, but in general. Late term abortions are not illegal everywhere. That is a state by state situation, and there are several states, including DC, with no restrictions. and of course rights are not granted by the Constitution/government or at any particular time. The Constitution exists to protect rights we have inherently. Just something I always get nit picky about.

To Hill's credit: From what I understand she is more conservative on this issue than many such as Bernie. I do believe she is only in favor of late term abortion in cases where the mother's health is in danger and I cannot argue against that. 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(07-31-2016, 04:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I actually go the opposite. I'd be willing to bet she is more pro-life on a personal level. Much like Kaine is.

Not when she says she's going to fight for taxpayer funded abortion and that religious beliefs have to change. 

This tells me she is more extreme.

Of course it's all opinion.

[BmorePat87]

(07-31-2016, 03:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you notice the term Citizen is clearly described; however, the word used when talking about denial of life is person. So the issue would be when does the unborn become a person (human being). I would assume  pro illegal-immigration folks might also point to this distinction. 

Ambiguity is certainly a great word to describe all of this. I hope the OP is able to see the productive back and forth between a number of us on how unclear all of this really is. Even if rights are yours at birth, we as a nation see that a late term pregnancy is vital and afford protections to that fetus/baby/human. It comes down the same question that comes up in abortion debates: when are you recognized as a person? Certainly birth is one of the most concrete spots to start.

Quote:Like I said earlier Clinton is not "wrong" in what she said; however if you listen to the interview (BTW, the interview is about 4 months old), she points to a woman's choice as the deciding factor, not the woman's well-being. This could leave one to believe that she would be allow an abortion to happen this late in the process.

Yea, I had to google this one to find the full context. I'll disagree with anyone who gets that impression and say that the fact that she believes in a woman's right to make a choice doesn't mean she would inherently be for late term abortions. For all I know, she may, but it just means she doesn't believe in abortions only for the sake of the mother's health. 

[BFritz21]

(07-31-2016, 10:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ambiguity is certainly a great word to describe all of this. I hope the OP is able to see the productive back and forth between a number of us on how unclear all of this really is. Even if rights are yours at birth, we as a nation see that a late term pregnancy is vital and afford protections to that fetus/baby/human. It comes down the same question that comes up in abortion debates: when are you recognized as a person? Certainly birth is one of the most concrete spots to start.
 

This is an issue where it's impossible to be unclear:  either you support abortion or you don't.


The health of the mother being in danger and allowing it in that circumstance isn't unclear and it's not supporting abortion, that would be supporting a medical process to save the mother's life.

[fredtoast]

(07-31-2016, 11:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: This is an issue where it's impossible to be unclear:  either you support abortion or you don't.

Many people are not in favor of abortion, but understand that the mother has the right to make the decision.

Just like it is possible to disagree with the opinions of the KKK but still understanding that they have the right to express their opinions.

So it is possible to not support the act of abortion but still support the mothers rights.

[*bfine32*]

(07-31-2016, 10:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Ambiguity is certainly a great word to describe all of this. I hope the OP is able to see the productive back and forth between a number of us on how unclear all of this really is. 

I agree, but it seems many were making this black and white; not just the OP. 

Birth is a good indicator to use as when someone becomes a "person", but it is something that someone can take from you. "You are not a person because I did not allow you to be born".

As I have said: Abortion will be something that future generations will judge us on; I'm just happy to know how I will be remembered if anyone discovers my thoughts on the procedure. There was a time when America favored the rights of the slave owner over the slave because the slave was considered to not be a person. 

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2016, 12:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I have said: Abortion will be something that future generations will judge us on; I'm just happy to know how I will be remembered if anyone discovers my thoughts on the procedure. There was a time when America favored the rights of the slave owner over the slave because the slave was considered to not be a person. 

Keep telling yourself this, but history disagrees.

Social conservatives like yourself have been judged to be wrong on pretty much every social issue in the history of this country.  Social conservatives were the ones who supported slavery and opposed women's rights to vote, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, and the civil rights movement.  Your side has been wrong about everything so far.  Don't think that is going to be any different with taking away a woman's freedom of choice. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2016, 12:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Keep telling yourself this, but ...Your side has been wrong about everything so far.  

Yep, it's obvious. I'm telling myself things. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-31-2016, 11:13 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: This is an issue where it's impossible to be unclear:  either you support abortion or you don't.

You're muddling topics again.

If we're focusing solely on abortion: support for abortion isn't black and white. Some people support no restrictions. Some support some restrictions. Some support all restrictions.

If we are focusing on when you protect an unborn life: When does life begin? This is a question without a black and white answer.

 
My response that you're quoting wasn't really about abortion, though. It was about the original topic, which is when do we get our rights. The law states one thing regarding when people get their rights (at birth). That is clear. That is black and white. Whether or not that's the intention of James Madison when he wrote the 5th Amendment, if he even wrote it with that in mind, is unclear. That is the ambiguity of it all.

Quote:The health of the mother being in danger and allowing it in that circumstance isn't unclear and it's not supporting abortion, that would be supporting a medical process to save the mother's life.

Terminating a pregnancy is terminating a pregnancy, no matter what you call it. Not to mention, there are some who support abortions but not past a certain point. There are some who do not support abortions, but are ok with cases of incest or rape. There's a lot of places where you can fall on the topic.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-01-2016, 12:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So it is possible to not support the act of abortion but still support the mothers rights.

Well, not quite really since she's not a mother if she has an abortion.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-01-2016, 12:44 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Keep telling yourself this, but history disagrees.

Social conservatives like yourself have been judged to be wrong on pretty much every social issue in the history of this country.  Social conservatives were the ones who supported slavery and opposed women's rights to vote, interracial marriage, same sex marriage, and the civil rights movement.  Your side has been wrong about everything so far.  Don't think that is going to be any different with taking away a woman's freedom of choice. 

Who knew social conservatives had so few opinions?