The Catholics on the Supreme Court are very sensitive, I think, on the issue of following the Pope. They don’t wanna do it. They want to avoid even the appearance of “taking their orders from Rome”. I guess maybe they are worried about imposing their Catholicism on the United States of America. Well, as an Episcopalian, let me say, don't you fucking do that, or we will rise up and smite you. Not that there are a lot of Episcopalians, but we all kick ass. Plus I know some Baptists.
I swear, I promise, they do not teach "total brain death" in the Episcopal church. I did not get this idea from the Episcopal church. I mean, it's secular law. In all fifty states. And Washington D.C. It's secular law, voted on by agnostics, Mormons, Hindus, Jews, Lutherans and all the Wiccans out in California. It's a consensus, man.
You don't actually have to make some Catholic finding that Life Begins at Conception. You don't actually have to define when life begins at all. Did Harry Blackmun define when life begins? No, that sloppy fucker did not. All we know from his opinion is that an unborn baby is not a legal person. And now a partially-born infant is not a legal person. So once we cut the umbilical cord, is she a person? Once she's out of diapers? When? As a Constitutional matter, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has left this an open question. Gee, thanks, guys.
You don't actually have to make some Catholic finding that Life Begins at Conception. You don't actually have to define when life begins at all. Did Harry Blackmun define when life begins? No, that sloppy fucker did not. All we know from his opinion is that an unborn baby is not a legal person. And now a partially-born infant is not a legal person. So once we cut the umbilical cord, is she a person? Once she's out of diapers? When? As a Constitutional matter, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has left this an open question. Gee, thanks, guys.
All I am saying is that if you recognize the humanity of the unborn, you might start looking for laws (death statutes) about when people die (death statutes), and then you could apply (death statutes) those laws to the abortion controversy in an attempt to resolve (death statutes) whether or not that Haskell guy killed that baby (death statutes) or did not kill that baby. Not saying we should be prosecuting him ex post facto. Just saying, if you're going to write a legal opinion describing the death of an infant in very graphic terms, it would be nice if some of you judges could make a legal determination on whether that was a homicide or not. What are you doing, just yanking our chain? Trying to upset us?
It almost smacks of advisory opinion. "I kinda think this kid's a person, but I can't call him a person, but I am outraged as if he's a person, so I will uphold this statute that calls him a person, even though he's not a person, although he should be a person." I mean, I know it's a mess, but why do we have to amend our Constitution to fix your shit? Seems to me the problem is not with the "person" word, but with the people who are reading it.
It almost smacks of advisory opinion. "I kinda think this kid's a person, but I can't call him a person, but I am outraged as if he's a person, so I will uphold this statute that calls him a person, even though he's not a person, although he should be a person." I mean, I know it's a mess, but why do we have to amend our Constitution to fix your shit? Seems to me the problem is not with the "person" word, but with the people who are reading it.
No comments:
Post a Comment