Select Page


Presidential candidate Donald Trump has had a difficult week, seemingly in search of a position on abortion. He has put out at least three positions so far. Media on all sides are attacking him as either a dolt or a misogynist. Whatever you think about Trump, he has been socially liberal most of his life, and he has been in the process of rethinking, or at least giving the impression of rethinking, his prior views. That and the fact that he “shoots from the lip,” makes for some great “gotcha” theatre at the hands of his political opponents. But while all eyes were on Trump’s misadventures, Hillary Clinton has made an amazing pronouncement which pretty much flew under the radar, and did not provoke much Media comment.

Hillary appeared on Meet the Press this week, and host Chuck Todd asked her:

When or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights?

To be honest, the question and her answer caught us off guard. Liberals have held firm to the proposition that whatever is in the womb, it certainly is not a person! As we pointed out in “Human Rights? Only for Some Humans,” the current pro-abortion argument is that the human being in the womb is mere property. The woman, according to the claim, has rights over her own body, therefore, everything within the boundaries of her body is her to “manage” as she sees fit. Since the human being living within her womb exists within the boundaries of her body, it is therefore her “property.” She holds all these property rights until the “thing” inside of her makes a geographical move from inside the womb to outside the womb. “It” can be killed even if most of “it” has been delivered! But once the “tissue has been officially born, she no longer owns that “tissue” and “it” becomes a person who is granted full rights of citizenship! This is THE approved truth. But oddly, Hillary wandered off the reservation a bit on this one. Just in case you missed it she said,

“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights…”

This was a positively breath taking admission on her part. It has now officially been stated by Hillary that not all living American persons have human rights under the constitution. Some persons are denied human rights in order for their “owners” to exercise their sacred “choice” to dismember, chemically burn to death, or otherwise dispose of their “property.”

How different really, is this from the “property rights” view held by the Democrat Party in 1860 – that not all humans have rights? Humans with dark skin could legally be denied human rights and classified as “property.” The owners of the human property could pretty much do with their “property” whatever they desired — sell them, breed them, or sadistically abuse them. Today we properly recoil at such thinking, but the plain fact is that animals have more rights in America today than does a little human person in the womb. Mass murderers or terrorists would never be subjected to an execution as inhumane as the average abortion. It has been shown that aborted humans are often developed enough to experience pain, yet even that fact does not move the pro-abortion crowd to feel the slightest compassion for the tiny person.

We have pointed out in the past that whoever defines the language, sets the terms of the debate. The “side” of any moral position that “owns the language” wins the case in the court of public opinion. This seems to present a golden opportunity for Evangelicals and Conservatives to use Hillary’s public statement to point out that liberals deny human rights to the most innocent persons, while portraying themselves as the heroic champions of civil rights for everyone. Biblically, innocent lives must be protected because all persons are accorded human rights. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they agreed on and penned the words in the Constitution:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…

These rights, what we call human rights, came directly from God – human beings “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” and the right to “Life” is the first one named. Currently our nation denies human rights based on a person’s geographical location — either inside, no human rights or outside the womb, viola, has human rights. How long will it be, especially with the Supreme Court’s possible (probable?) shift to the left, until those on the position of power decide to add the nursing home, the mental hospital, or the institution for the handicapped to the list of locations where humans no longer have human rights? Why not? Should not every Grandma be a “wanted Grandma?”Ω

Don and Joy Signature 2

© 2015, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. All rights reserved. Excerpts and links may be used if full and clear credit is given with specific direction to the original content.

Link partner: pokerseri autowin88 vegasslot77 mantra88 ligasedayu warungtoto luxury138 luxury777 bos88 bro138 sky77 roma77 zeus138 batman138 dolar138 gas138 ligaciputra babe138 indobet rtp zeus luxury333 ligagg88