So Hillary Clinton has made the following statement:

quote:

---

Hillary Clinton:

"My view has always been, this is a choice, it is not a mandate. The unborn person doesn't have Constitutional rights. So in the third trimester of pregnancy there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother."

---

Here is the hypothetical scenario:

We have a pregnant woman that is attacked, but the assailant isn't interested in killing the mother, but he attacks her in such a way that her baby dies while still unborn and the mother survives. The mother had intended on getting a late term abortion and the attacker is the unborn childs father, so she doesn't press charges for the assault on her.

Murder or no?

One

Parasites have no rights

Page uno

Juan

Too late in the day to actually think? lol

quote:

---

So Hillary Clinton has made the following statement:

quote:

---

Hillary Clinton:

"My view has always been, this is a choice, it is not a mandate. The unborn person doesn't have Constitutional rights. So in the third trimester of pregnancy there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother."

---

Here is the hypothetical scenario:

We have a pregnant woman that is attacked, but the assailant isn't interested in killing the mother, but he attacks her in such a way that her baby dies while still unborn and the mother survives. The mother had intended on getting a late term abortion and the attacker is the unborn childs father, so she doesn't press charges for the assault on her.

Murder or no?

---

Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right not to be murdered? No wonder she flunked the Bar exam.

wtf

How will she feed?

Redrum

Maybe the unborn just got suicided instead.

Is the baby gay or straight?

Serious reply: If the mother is trying to carry to term, it is a person, and killing it would be murder. Screwed up way of looking at it, but it's the current law.

Also, all but the most extreme .00000001% of pro-lifers do not oppose the .000000001% of abortions that are to save the life or health of the mother. Self-defense is always justified.

However, health of the mother does not included being really bummed out about the pregnancy.

Crime prevention/population control/saving tax dollars.

So in cases where a pregnant mother is attacked and the baby dies, there are no charges to be pressed? Or is that a state by state thing?

my post on a similar topic.

quote:

---

Just some gelatinous goo that a woman decides whether it gets flushed down the toilet or is going to cost the sperm donor half of his **** for 18 years.

---

quote:

---

So Hillary Clinton has made the following statement:

quote:

---

Hillary Clinton:

"My view has always been, this is a choice, it is not a mandate. The unborn person doesn't have Constitutional rights. So in the third trimester of pregnancy there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother."

---

Here is the hypothetical scenario:

We have a pregnant woman that is attacked, but the assailant isn't interested in killing the mother, but he attacks her in such a way that her baby dies while still unborn and the mother survives. The mother had intended on getting a late term abortion and the attacker is the unborn childs father, so she doesn't press charges for the assault on her.

Murder or no?

---

Per the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, fetuses in the womb can be the victim of violent crimes, up to and including murder. It specifically excludes abortions performed with the consent of the mother. That's a federal law; a bunch of states also recognize similar rights of in utero fetuses.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So Hillary Clinton has made the following statement:

quote:

---

Hillary Clinton:

"My view has always been, this is a choice, it is not a mandate. The unborn person doesn't have Constitutional rights. So in the third trimester of pregnancy there is room for looking at the life and the health of the mother."

---

Here is the hypothetical scenario:

We have a pregnant woman that is attacked, but the assailant isn't interested in killing the mother, but he attacks her in such a way that her baby dies while still unborn and the mother survives. The mother had intended on getting a late term abortion and the attacker is the unborn childs father, so she doesn't press charges for the assault on her.

Murder or no?

---

Per the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, fetuses in the womb can be the victim of violent crimes, up to and including murder. It specifically excludes abortions performed with the consent of the mother. That's a federal law; a bunch of states also recognize similar rights of in utero fetuses.

---

hypocrisy is the best kind of isy.

Can it live outside of its mommy's tummy without assistance or being kept in a box to further gestate?

If Yes - then murder and shouldn't be aborted either.

If No - then its still part of the mommy and she can cut the tumor out if she wants and not murder; just assault.

Thats a ridiculous definition. No baby would survive "without assistance" even if carried to term. And there are lots that need NICU care at a wide range of term lengths.

The law of the land is closer to your stance, Garland. The fuzzy dividing line currently in use is "viability", but it doesn't require the infant be able to hop off the table and find a job. Up to date medical technology is taken into account. In Roe v. Wade, the Court basically set viability at 28 weeks (e.g., the third trimester), but Casey v. Planned Parenthood removed that third trimester bright line, since modern technology means that a fetus could be viable as much as a month previous to that.

Who knows - as medical technology advances, you may see viability pushed even further back.

quote:

---

Thats a ridiculous definition.

---

Of course it is; its the General Board. You came here for rational discourse?

can a pregnant woman drive in an HOV lane without receiving a ticket?

quote:

---

The law of the land is closer to your stance, Garland. The fuzzy dividing line currently in use is "viability", but it doesn't require the infant be able to hop off the table and find a job. Up to date medical technology is taken into account. In Roe v. Wade, the Court basically set viability at 28 weeks (e.g., the third trimester), but Casey v. Planned Parenthood removed that third trimester bright line, since modern technology means that a fetus could be viable as much as a month previous to that.

Who knows - as medical technology advances, you may see viability pushed even further back.

---

our OB said 24 weeks to viability and that is with twins who are smaller than a single baby would be.

Murdering our own children is the worst stain on America.