Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you really think Hillary Clinton, a presidential candidate, misspeaking would render heretofore constitutional acts illegal? What about your congressman? A local councilman? Would that change any laws?
She can mistakenly call fetus a "cat", a "television" or a "senior citizen" and that is not going to change any abortion laws.
Mick
So Hillary cannot make a mistake? Especially a bad one? Because she's Hillary?
While I respect your back alley constitutional law analysis, I would challenge you to produce a Supreme Court opinion conferring constitutional rights to unborn fetus/baby. I want a citation, not "but it's common sense" or "we can all agree". Good luck.
Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559
The major difference between these is intent. Hillary makes a blunder saying person. That could be a freudian slip, or who knows. No sane person is going to say she's trying to lead abortion to being taken away because in the same breath she states that there are no constitutional rights for the unborn and later that Roe v. Wade should stand.
Trump on the other hand didn't make a slip, he said you should punish the women getting the abortion. He's stated he wants to ban abortions in the same sitting. Leading one to believe that his intent and belief was that banning abortions and punishing women were the things to do.
If the intent for Hillary was a whoops she let out the bag that she really wants to ban abortions then this would be HUGE. It would be WAY bigger than the Trump thing because Hillary has been such a defender of Roe v. Wade and yeahhhhhh it would be enormous. But all this was was a bad misuse of the wrong word.
Trumps instance made it definitely seem like he truthfully wanted to add those punishments and ban abortions and now he was just covering up that secret. That's why it was so big.
There you go. Still waiting for (probably paid) Hillary shill input where I'm wrong.
Hillary's comment is far worse than what Trump said, and the shills and media are busy sweeping this under the rug.
I am confused as to why you are citing materials that prove MY point, namely that unborn fetus/baby has no constitutional rights, whether you call it a "person" or not. Please do explain if you think I am mistaken . . . . . maybe I missed your point.
No doubt the media can sink their teeth into somebody when they want. Then again, it is not every election cycle when a world class buffoon such as DT is there for them to feast on. They need to eat, too.
The major difference between these is intent. Hillary makes a blunder saying person. That could be a freudian slip, or who knows. No sane person is going to say she's trying to lead abortion to being taken away because in the same breath she states that there are no constitutional rights for the unborn and later that Roe v. Wade should stand.
Trump on the other hand didn't make a slip, he said you should punish the women getting the abortion. He's stated he wants to ban abortions in the same sitting. Leading one to believe that his intent and belief was that banning abortions and punishing women were the things to do.
If the intent for Hillary was a whoops she let out the bag that she really wants to ban abortions then this would be HUGE. It would be WAY bigger than the Trump thing because Hillary has been such a defender of Roe v. Wade and yeahhhhhh it would be enormous. But all this was was a bad misuse of the wrong word.
Trumps instance made it definitely seem like he truthfully wanted to add those punishments and ban abortions and now he was just covering up that secret. That's why it was so big.
Yes this is the problem. We know what Trump means. However, we will never know what Hillary's intent was, because the mainstream media will never follow up this question. The media will NEVER ask Queen Hillary "what did you mean by unborn persons not having any rights?" So we can speculate, but never know.
If the journalist who covered Hillary would have pounced on her like "Tingly leg" Chris Matthews pounced on Trump's comments, we may have learned a lot more.
Besides, she's a lawyer who SHOULD know that was a major gaffe and refer to a fetus as a person because that was the foundation of abortion laws being constitutional in the first place.
No doubt the media can sink their teeth into somebody when they want. Then again, it is not every election cycle when a world class buffoon such as DT is there for them to feast on. They need to eat, too.
Trump has stuck his foot in his mouth a lot, but there's a gold mine of Hillary dirt they can also dig into, the media just chooses not to. Wonder why?
Even when the media DOES actually ask Queen Hillary a question, they usually ask questions like "Hillary, what would you do when, oops, if you get to be President" or "Hillary, what makes you so awesome?"
Since you didn't obviously either bother read why Planned Parenthood was upset by what Hillary said, nor understand the significance of this, you obviously are a Hillary shill.
Let me spell it out for you. The problem is Hillary described a fetus as a person. That is explicitly what Planned Parenthood and abortion supporters DONT want to do because all "persons" have constitutional rights, including not to be killed. All laws up to now explicitly define fetuses as NOT a person, otherwise you cannot have an abortion. Understand? So Hillary opened up a huge can of worms here. Too bad the media and Hillary shills don't care.
Actually Hillary's comments are worse than Trumps, because what Trump said does not re-open existing abortion law validity, while Hillary's comments DO reopen the debate on if abortion is constitutional or not. Too bad Hillary shills want to sweep this and a ton of other things under the rug.
Read it.
Not a Hill shill.
I understand that this is much ado about nothing.
Now let me spell it out for you :
Everytime someone slips the semantics on this issue, there is outcry from the pro-birthers.
You expect the media to cover every slip of the tounge or just the ones regarding your agenda?
I've watched every presidential debate since elementary school. In every one I am always impressed that when there is a slip of the tounge, or even a Freudian slip, the other candidate is gracious enough to not kick him down for it.
This year's political race is disgusting enough. Posts like this thread are just adding to that.
You are not gonna win over any pro-choice, or even people on the fence by playing with semantics.
Abortion is legal, however you refer to the sack of cells or person. I dont care about PP's "outrage." If the media was as biased as you all think, spotlight would be on PP'S comments much more than it is.
What Trump said absolutely opens existing abortion laws because again, abortion is legal.
Everytime someone slips the semantics on this issue, there is outcry from the pro-birthers.
You expect the media to cover every slip of the tounge or just the ones regarding your agenda?
I've watched every presidential debate since elementary school. In every one I am always impressed that when there is a slip of the tounge, or even a Freudian slip, the other candidate is gracious enough to not kick him down for it.
This year's political race is disgusting enough. Posts like this thread are just adding to that.
You are not gonna win over any pro-choice, or even people on the fence by playing with semantics.
Abortion is legal, however you refer to the sack of cells or person. I dont care about PP's "outrage." If the media was as biased as you all think, spotlight would be on PP'S comments much more than it is.
What Trump said absolutely opens existing abortion laws because again, abortion is legal.
"Understand?"
Yes, except when candidate A slips, the media is on it for weeks. When candidate B slips, no media coverage at all. Understand?
That's pretty much it for me. I've can continue to make several cases on why the media is all for Hillary. You are going to continue to push whatever narrative you're going to push, which coincidentally just happens to favor Hillary.
Whatever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
