She Admits They Are a Person But Denies Them the Most Basic Right to Life

Image result for hillary clinton abortion meme

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. 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Vote Trump for their sake….

Image result for donald trump

“I think it’s terrible if you go with what Hillary is saying in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.  Now, you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me.

You can take the baby and rip the baby from the womb of the mother, and I won’t allow it.

“…. I’m putting pro-life justices on the court.”

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “She Admits They Are a Person But Denies Them the Most Basic Right to Life

  1. Maea

    I do have a problem with voting for Trump on the basis of him being “prolife.”

    He has admitted that he’s for “caveats.” A solid and logical anti-abortion, pro-unborn life stance would not allow caveats, because these are exceptions and it means one person’s life is worth less based on the circumstances of their conception.

    I don’t see how people can claim to be prolife but because a baby was conceived through rape, it means abortion is okay. If we believe that all unborn babies are actual people, who should have the same rights as everyone else, then it is illogical to say exceptions are okay. How is it morally superior to say it’s okay to kill a child whose conception was less than ideal, and then turn around and say it’s evil to kill a full term child sin utero?

    Like

    1. “. How is it morally superior to say it’s okay to kill a child whose conception was less than ideal, and then turn around and say it’s evil to kill a full term child sin utero?”

      I agree with you in that I too oppose caveats. It’s not morally superior to allow them while talking about being prolife.

      My position is that the reality is that one of these two candidates will be president. Full stop. There’s no getting around it. We know Hillary is proabortion and that the prolife movement will gain no ground with her and some states may even lose what little ground they have in limiting it. Trump is saying what he would like to do, which is get the Federal Gov. out of it and leave it to the states. This would save more lives.

      Ultimately, it comes down to the Supreme Court. Hillary or Trump will come and go but whoever gets appointed to the court will affect our laws and the direction of this country for up to 40 years. Trump has given his list of judges he would nominate and they are very good conservative judges.

      We don’t have the choice for what our ideal is this election which is a candidate with no caveats. However, we do have one whose position is much better than the other that will lead to more lives being saved.

      I get it. We want the touchdown of having Roe v Wade overturned but we are so far down the field that we have to be willing to keep moving the ball forward 10 yards at a time or risk losing the ball all together.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s