Kamala Harris omits right to 'life' when quoting Declaration of Independence in abortion speech

Because that is when most people back then knew that it was alive. With today's technology we know that point is actually much much sooner.

 

It is always alive, since inert matter does not spontaneously come alive. What matters is what is the significance of that life.

 

“Future taxpayer”?

 

Which means that is was LEGAL under STATUTORY law, no?

 

I never said this was the only reason she is not very smart

 

Nope. Statutory law said nothing about abortion. Therefore its not considered legal nor illegal under statutory law. In order for it to be legal under statutory law then statutory law would have to say something about it being legal. Statutory law ONLY speaks to what is said IN statutory law.

For instance lets say that I invented the Phaser from Star Trek tomorrow. Is it legal for me to have it? Or illegal? Statutory law says nothing on it. People often assume that if something is not written down in statutory law then its legal. That is not always the case. Hence where common law comes into play. You're trying to separate the two. They can't be. They both make up what is and isn't legal or illegal. In order for something to be truly legal then either Statutory Law or Common Law (as common law can over ride statutory law), or both, would have to say its legal. Otherwise the legality is up in the air. Neither legal, nor illegal. Just permitted.

Btw, if you'd like to know the answer to my hypothetical instance I already know the definitive answer.

 

Simple question then, who is smarter, Trump or Harris?

 

A tree is alive, a cow is alive. Being alive does not automatically convey any rights.

 

But, a legislature could write a law to grant rights to either under whatever circumstance they want if there is no federal law to overrule it. That is the crux of the debate that is being conveniently ignored for some reason.

 

Trump, Kumalla has no biological children. She is so stupid that nature has seen to it that she can't reproduce. Plus, orally is a futile trek for even the best of sperm ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Here is but one, and there are countless other examples, off topic as hell.

August 1, 2004 Senator Mark Dayton of Ohio, after studying the testimony of NORAD, and noticing how many times it had been edited (I think this was before the 911 Commission), declared that NORAD had lied many times regarding the times and details of the aviation aspects of the events of the day.

Found in the bowels of WTC were guns encased in melted concrete. Pictures were taken by a FEMA photographer whose name escapes me at the moment. Curtis somebody who eventually had to flee the country because of threats to him after that and many other pictures were released that showed the official narrative to be impossible. Guns encased in melted concrete cannot happen from burning jetfuel, sorry.

 

Yes, that is true.

 

Are you claiming that guns found at the WTC is somehow proof that there was a conspiracy over 9-11?

 

If you wish to discuss this topic further, please visit the CT threads with your questions.

 

This conversation goes back to what @Izzy said:

So obviously your argument is that abortions at this time were NOT legal, but are you agreeing that they were in fact "common practice?" Of course, obviously something does not need to be legal in order to be common practice.

Which hypothetical instance?