"“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.”
Mrs. Clinton also said “there is room for reasonable kinds of restrictions” on abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy.
...The comment “further stigmatizes #abortion,” Ms. Arellano said in a tweet. “She calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ & calls for later term restrictions.”
...“This is Trump-level gaffery,” Mr. Podhoretz said in a tweet. “If you acknowledge personhood, then the unborn has every Constitutional right.”"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/3/hillary-clinton-unborn-person-has-no-constitutiona/
35 comments:
Podhoretz thinks this is "Trump-level" because she told the truth.
Fascinating.
“The best way to tell when a leftist’s gaffe is serious is to see if the Associated Press or the New York Times have recognized its existence. As of 9 p.m. ET this evening, neither has. So it’s serious. Pile-ons are coming from the left and the right.”
Link
The unborn person does have constitutional rights.
I don't think this hurts Hillary, her supporters know where she stands and its firmly on the side of the pro-choice crowd. And since when did Dems care one way or the other about the constitution?
Eugenics is one of the founding tenets of the Progressive platform. They're just usually more careful when talking about it. A Kinsley gaffe: "when a politician accidentally tells the truth -- some obvious truth [s]he isn't supposed to say".
Tray biz ray, that's très bizarre translated back into English for normal people. By her phrasing she allows fertilized cell clusters are people, so denying anything is denying people, and scraping them off is scraping off people. Too tah fay extror di nair quite extraordinary for regular people.
But I was thinking of something else at the time. Something a lot more fun. Now it's gone.
Oh! It snapped back. I was looking at the painting posted on Ace called the Matchmaker, a Dutch chiaroscuro of a woman's candle lit breasts. One of the pages I read about the painting said the "the flute represents sexual openness" summat, not a proper quote, while the whole painting is for her breasts. The lovingly painted pair predominate in the painting. Everything else is superfluous. Yet the presence of two men, one holding a purse, fire imaginations. People love this painting. Mostly pervs. The author of the page refers to the stringed guitar-like instrument as "flute" and I'm all Ha ha ha ha ha ha you mean "lute" and there goes your entire erudite edifice. Everything crumbles because of that.
http://oneyearonepaintingaday.blogspot.com/2012/04/gerard-van-honthorst-and-matchmaker.html
Jim in St Louis said...
The unborn person does have constitutional rights.
I don't think this hurts Hillary, her supporters know where she stands and its firmly on the side of the pro-choice crowd.
You must be joking.
Or Meade.
Thanks for the link, I mean flink. Who can't tell a lute from a flute? Bruce Jenner?
Or was it Hillary pretending to make a mistake? That is, pandering. Her base is safely in the bag.
Is it?
Bernie was supposed to have been neutralized long ago, but he took MI and the black vote therein, as well as the Hispanic vote in IL.
It ain't over till it's over.
38 states, including liberal bastions like CA. and MA. have fetal homicide laws. Those laws convey the constitutional right to life to the unborn. The more SCIENCE advances, making the unborn viable earlier and earlier, the more this is a big loser for liberals.
Thanks, nd.
I knew some states had them, but 3/4 is a big deal.
Hillary is caught between the Scylla of feminism and the Charybdis of white, black, and Hispanic families who value their kids.
Is it virtue signalling when you makes both sides mad, or is it uber virtue signalling?
Say that 3 times fast.
And Hillary making noises about limits on late pregnancy is a big deal.
Virtue signalling ended when news of the 100 grand check McConnell cut the Cruz campaign got out.
Almost 70% of Americans believe late term abortions should be banned. That % grows steadily every year. This is A LOSER for liberals. Only the child hating feminists["I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies!"] don't get it yet.
Ultrasound put the lie to the idea that the unborn baby wasn't a human being. Later advances in video technology enhanced that.
Child hating feminists do make up a significant part of Hillary's constituency, but the will not get her elected.
All those Catholics and Moslems Pissy's been importing are going to bite the Left in the ass.
ed, So much of feminism was based on SCIENTIFIC lies. "There is no biological difference between the sexes, only cultural." And, "A fetus is not a life until it is born." The people that allegedly worship science are actually science deniers. You're right about ultrasound and the incredibly clear photos from the womb.
The furor on the pro abortion side is that Hillary slipped up and called the unborn child/person a person. The pro abortion group want to keep up the fiction that it is not really a person, a potential human being who has not been yet born, but is rather just a clump of cells that mean nothing. Like dog doo on the bottom of your shoe. Not a person. NOT a child. It means nothing....nothing you hear me!
Granting person-hood to the unborn, whether they have Constitutional rights or not, breaches the denialist fantasy that there is not a living child in the womb or a human being being formed. If you deny the humanity then it is OK to kill the object. This is what the Nazis did. Dehumanize in order to be able to justify murder.
Hillary broke the fantasy. How dare she!
nd, whatever else which separates us, on this, we agree.
for fucks sake can we stop using the term virtue signalling. If I kill anyone the term virtue signalling, is that virtue signalling?
That criminal retard can't even do politics right.
You know how people keep telling you that Trump might be a Democrat in disguise? Shillary could very well be a right-winger in disguise.
How sincere do you think her de-conversion from Barry Goldwater-ism really was? I think her only ideology is power. That's all it ever was.
It used to just be called "posing". When I use it, I'm specifically making fun of the term. In other words, I'm being virtuous when I do use it.
If everyone is now sick of it, my work is done.
"Every Single One: Since 2009, Obama's DOJ Civil Rights Division Hired ONLY Leftist Lawyers (Hundreds!)"
"Why the Civil Rights Division? Simple -- it may be one of the most powerful components of the entire federal government. If a president wanted to "fundamentally transform" the nation, he would likely start with the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
The tentacles of the Division reach into virtually every crevice of American life. Federal statutes, under the banner of protecting civil rights, reach home lending, football stadium and theater seating, voting, elections, education, college admissions, apartment rentals, prisons, hiring practices, the use of English, special education programs, religious liberty, abortion clinic protests, arrests, law enforcement, voter rolls, insane asylums, state and local government hiring, swimming pool lift chairs, bathtub design, Spanish language ballots, school discipline, and even if boys can dress in drag in high school."
https://pjmedia.com/blog/every-single-one-since-2009-obamas-doj-civil-rights-division-hired-only-leftist-lawyers-hundreds/
This is why it's so important to stop her, even if it means some of us have to swallow their butt hurt.
The furor on the pro abortion side is that Hillary slipped up and called the unborn child/person a person. The pro abortion group want to keep up the fiction that it is not really a person, a potential human being who has not been yet born, but is rather just a clump of cells that mean nothing. Like dog doo on the bottom of your shoe. Not a person. NOT a child. It means nothing....nothing you hear me!
The furor on the anti-choice side is that a sperm doesn't turn an egg cell into a person.
There are honest Roe v. Wade opponents like Synova who admit that some form of neural activity, particularly neural activity that could reify pain/pleasure/self-awareness, is the only metric by which it makes sense to give a pre-person rights. Anything less means that you have to oppose the uncontroversial practice of not mandating that we keep every vegetative brain-dead patient at the end of life in a permanent artificial coma.
Before folks start weeping tears of joy about the weird prospect of inserting social security cards and birth certificates intravaginally to be handed off to enthusiastic young fetal people, here are the stats on how many abortions take place by trimester, and the good reasons for why those pesky 1.6% that take place after 20 weeks are still performed.
Not that facts ever mattered to the minds focused on identifying with and "saving" the mindless.
Giving person-hood to a baby in the womb is fine if that what you want to do, but I'm not an honest opponent of Roe v. Wade, because it isn't an honest law. It's a fictional creation. Given that, I'd define life, human life, as starting at the point of conception, which then would entail the rights, liberties, virtues, and protections even though it is not fully formed. At a genetic level, it is the blueprint for a human being that creates a human being, but even I realize that all sorts of things can go wrong gestationally. I simply want to see the act of purposeful non-medically necessary abortion outlawed. It is a national horror that we even allow this and call ourselves enlightened.
So if someone created 46 human DNA strands in a test tube you would entitle that to legal protections, too, Methadras? Because that's what your comment implies. And we are more than capable technologically of doing that. We do stuff close to it all the time, in fact. It's really not much more fundamental than culturing human cells. But I guess since DNA is the coolest cutting edge of biology we have to use that to define what a person is.
Strands of DNA are not people. Every day your body sheds many fully human cells full of all 46 strands of that DNA and it is not murder, let alone any sort of killing. People who think they're getting precise on this commit the fallacy of division. It's the way our organs work together that makes us fully human. Even comatose adults aren't entitled to some sort of absolute protection. And once they die those organs can be harvested, including all the DNA in each and every one of them. Does that mean we should change the identities of organ recipients to reflect the legal identity of their donors? Based on the donors' DNA? Crazy.
And all this just to get the government into people's bodies and to tell pregnant women that their status is nothing but an incubator.
Let the Vatican persist in its craziness about using a simple DNA definition to define wacky moral conclusions. They've been doing that for a long time. But they are not our government.
If someone burned the "blueprint" for a building would you charge them with arson?
How did a blueprint for something become the thing that it is a blueprint for?
I don't think it ever did. It's different from what it diagrams. That's why it's called a blueprint.
God, I hate to say this, but Ritmo, I concur.
Now just shoot me and put me out of my misery.
In no way, no matter how good the blueprint, it will NEVER be a structure. An unborn child is a growing person viable earlier and earlier as science progresses. Bad analogy. Draw up another one.
Rhythm and Balls said...
If someone burned the "blueprint" for a building would you charge them with arson?
We're not talking about a a blueprint, we're talking a structure under construction and, yes, people have been charged.
For many liberals, replace unborn child w/ unborn puppy or kitty and then they'll have empathy.
"we're talking a structure under construction"
Absolutely, but you would not buy it, pay rent, or insure it as a building until it was one. In other words, you would not value it as what it will become until it is. All along the process it become more and more valuable, with no clear delineations other than concept and completion. The rest is continuum. I have no satisfying answer to that dilemma, but the problem should be stated clearly first.
I worked for the prosecutor's office. A building under construction being torched was prosecuted the same as a completed structure. This is simply a bad analogy. Now, there are more severe penalties for torching a building that has people living in it as opposed to an uninhabited structure. Just like there are different degrees of burglary. It's 2nd degree burglary if no one is home and a residence is burgled. First degree burglary has higher penalties as it means there was someone in the structure when it was broken into. The potential for violence exists.
Rhythm and Balls said...
So if someone created 46 human DNA strands in a test tube you would entitle that to legal protections, too, Methadras?
Building something and giving it life are two different things. Someone can create and construct a 46 strand of DNA, but while that is the blueprint for a human being, until it is alive, growing, splitting, recreating, consuming, etc. which are all the hallmarks of life, then no, it isn't entitled to legal protections.
I wasn't talking about personhood per se, but that human life starts at conception. The spark of life is the big differentiator here. The blueprint for that life to manifest on it's own without the spark of life is nothing. It's a distinction with a big difference. Also, just because my human processes include the shedding of my DNA is not a murderous act. That DNA unattached to my living personage is no longer viable for sustained life since it is no longer a part of the spark of life, me. The spark of life allows all human beings to reproduce themselves at the genetic level, or any other living thing for that matter, but I as a human being and my DNA being unique in that it can only create a human being and will never create anything else is worthy, because of that spark of life competent, of legal protections.
Post a Comment