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

Sure. Just like being stabbed in an alley at 24 is the same as dying of old age.

The only difference is the knife.

 

not the same at all, but nice try

 

because it's the Women's Uterus, it's her choice to bring a baby into this world with it or not

even after born, no one can force you to give them a kidney to save them

 

I'm "pro-Choice", bro. Show me where I was wrong.

 

So only those babies who were given the right to life by their mother?

 

How are they different.

 

Wrong about what?

 

What does it matter if anyone agrees with your red herring or not?

Harris cited the Preamble of the DOI in her speech, did she not? and she did so because she was connecting the reproductive rights of women to the inherent and inalienable natural rights expressed in the Preamble. She did that for a reason, and that's because those inherent and inalienable natural rights are not the government's to grant or deny. On the other hand, the privileges and prohibitions contained in our positive, codified laws are the government's to grant or deny.

 

that the mother chooses to have, yes, not all sperm and eggs will become babies

 

trying adding petri-dish potential babies to your life insurance or claiming them for a tax write off

 

Was she supposed to read the entire thing to please her reflexive detractors?

 

That you imply things and then you deny them.

And it is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the law.

More irrelevant tripe.

 

Republicans agree.

https://www.daines.senate.gov/wp-co...t for Pregnant Moms Act of 2019 One-Pager.pdf

Child Tax Credit for Pregnant Moms Act of 2019
Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) / Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC)

 

LoL @ "the law is more relevant than the founding principles of our country".

What is it our laws are based on again?

 

You can laugh all you want, you are4 only demonstrating ignorance.

 

So you can't, or won't, answer my question.

It's ok. I know why.

 

As I pointed out earlier, she didn't need to read it all, and by not reading it all she shifted attention away from a legitimate point she made about natural rights in general and women reproductive rights in specific. When I opened a thread making my case for legalized abortion the first place I turned to was the aforementioned Richard Overton and his assertion of the right to self-proprietorship in "An Arrow Against All Tyrants and Tyranny" (1646)

“To every individual in nature is given an individual property by nature, not to be invaded or usurped by any. For every one as he is himself, so he hath a self propriety, else could he not be himself, and on this no second may presume to deprive any of, without manifest violation and affront to the very principles of nature, and of the Rules of equity and justice between man and man."

John Locke later echoed Overton's assertion in the second of his Two Treatises of Government:



Despite what Alito & Co. claimed in the Dobbs ruling, the right to self-proprietorship and the rights that emanate from it are part of the history and traditions of Anglo-American rights and law. This right was also recognized in 1891 by the SCOTUS in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford:

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others..."

So there is legal precedent one can raise, and the three dissenting judges in Dobbs did just that (to no avail).

Finally, she could have pointed to the fact often raised by RWers that what separates our constitutional republic from a democracy is that the rights of the individual are affirmed, reserved and secured - we don't leave our fundamental rights to the caprices of the mob (i.e., voters).

I wholeheartedly agree with the thrust of the argument she was making, but she made a mistake cherry-picking rights out of the Preamble of the DOI when she didn't have to, and that's unfortunate. The point she made is a legitimate one, but it's gotten lost in the noise about what she omitted from the DOI.

Another unfortunate aspect surrounding all this is the Biden Administration's inconsistency on the right to self-proprietorship (ex., the unconstitutional vax mandate that got struck down by SCOTUS). That inconsistency completely undermines the credibility of everyone in the administration and it makes it easy for the anti-abortion crowd (which is largely inconsistent about this, as well) to simply dismiss their advocacy of that right.

I hope Harris and her speech writer learn from this lesson and don't trip over the mistake they made here in the future. They had the right idea but screwed up the delivery.

 

Oh

 

Actually you have no clue and I do not answer ignorant irrelevant tripe.

 

Constructive criticism....



Didn't see THAT coming, did you?

 

Didn’t see what coming?

 

Reading is fundamental...

 

LoL sure.

 

It's not a legally binding document, but if you're going to quote the thing, do it right. Omitting the word pretty much means you knew it was going to be a problem for the case you were trying to make by quoting it in the first place. An omission that would be obvious and easily caught. Durr durr durr.

 

Same with conservatives like the no religious test, or the equal protection clause, or the separation of powers clause, with someone like Boebert, the no establishment clause, or the 24th amendment, pro-confederate GOP supporters who think the 12th amendment should be abolished, the far right religious conservatives who think the 19th amendment should be abolished, or the 15th amendment needs to be amended, especially that citizenship clause, and the list goes on.

Oh hell, even before the Constitution was ratified, there were people who didn't like the US Constitution, which is why you have the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers arguing about the various aspects of the US Constitution.