Humanity Amendment
You maybe will not see this in the mainstream news, but at least one state in our union is preparing to overturn Roe v Wade in a fashion which, if I read the opinion correctly, leaves no legal room to reimpose it.
I cannot restrain my joy. This is the first time since I have started following politics when it seems as if Conservative principles and the Culture of Life have a strong wind of public opinion in their sails. A generation born and raised with the prenatal genocide called Abortion as a part of their background, and bombarded without ceasing from a tender age with propaganda both subtle and blatant to made the abomination seem normal and mainstream — for some reason, even among the young, the grisly and paramount Eucharist of the death cult of Moloch called abortion is losing support.
Amendment 26 – The Mississippi Personhood Amendment– is a citizens initiative to amend the Mississippi Constitution to define personhood as beginning at fertilization. Its purpose is to protect all life, including the life of the unborn. http://personhoodmississippi.com/amendment-26/what-it-says.aspx
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.
Risibly and predictably, the hysteria on Left-leaning blogs is beginning, making the claim that this amendment would outlaw contraception and would lead to jail time for women who suffer natural miscarriages. Ri-iii-ight.
Speaking as an attorney and a scholar of the law, let me explain this in layman’s terms: shut your pie-eating holes, you lying jackass buggers.
Wise and useful to the republic, and as pleasing alike to maidens and angels as revoking the legalization of contraceptives would be, there is no wording the proposed amendment which could possibly have that legal effect. None. Not even if a court were as creative as the kangaroos of Roe v Wade who created out of thin air and penumbras and emanations and smoke and mirrors a right to prenatal infanticide that overturns all legislative interest in the area.
So why bring up the prospect that declaring human offspring to be human will lead to the banning of contraception and the end of the world? If decreeing by law life to begin at conception is an unwise public policy, let us debate the point on the merits. Why bring up contraception at all? Unless, of course, you know you cannot win the debate about when life begins on the merits.
That is one possibility. The other is that the Left are illogical, and determine what policy to support not by logical relation of one idea to another, but by the emotional association of idea with idea.
Let me use an example. A conservative might reason that a nation cannot decrease its national debts solely by borrowing, on that grounds that borrowing incurs rather than alleviates debt: for this is the logical relation of the idea of debt to borrowing, A is A, or the law of identity.
On the other hand, a Leftist, perhaps because he heard a folk song in his youth, or saw a striking image, or conceives a deep hatred for his father, has formed an arbitrary and emotional association between an imaginary picture of Rich Uncle Pennybags from the Monopoly game, and the idea that working one’s way out of debt tramples the faces of Tiny Tim Cratchett and Oliver Twist, and other poor people the Leftist knows only through books and films. So he will support the idea of decreasing the national debt solely by means of borrowing, and if you question him on the soundness of the policy, he will call you a racist Homophobic Islamophobe, since (in his mind) opposition to his policy is emotionally associated with images of mental disease also taken from Victorian Age pictures of Bedlam, or a comic book or horror film he saw as a child.
The third possibility, and not mutually exclusive with the first two, is that Lefties are liars. Their entire legal and moral philosophy is based on neurotic self-deception, which, unfortunately, they cannot maintain without the active cooperation of a public willing to play along, and help them falsify reality, and put on the play-pretend show.
The guild of innocent blood on their hands, the mother’s own child’s blood, the blood of a child slain by his very mother merely for her own selfish convenience–that is a guilt not to be soothed away.
And so the guilt must be covered over in the screaming distraction of some other issue, or called women’s rights or liberties or some other noble name. The gnawing worm in the heart that knows abortion is infanticide must be silenced by the magic of Orwellian double-think, or merely shouted down.
When they shout and sob and sneer, Leftist are not arguing with you, dear reader. They are arguing with little tiny pale ghosts they only see in their minds, the countless infants slain, who stare at them accusingly with uncanny and empty eyes that never saw the light of day. If their argument takes on a tone of hysteria, this may be why.
That is the optimistic assumption, of course.
The pessimistic assumption is that the Leftists actually believe their acrid and deathly rhetoric, and look upon their fellow human beings with eyes so cold and reptilian that they actually regard their fellow human beings as hairless apes or lifeless biochemical machines, and therefore their conscience does not trouble them because they have no more pity than a death camp guard for some untermenschen about to be gassed and rendered into soap. The babies are, to them, simply Jews or Negroes or some other subhuman subspecies so low on the rung of evolution as to not deserve the pity one would spare a dying dog.
Of course, if they don’t regard wee helpless babies in the womb as human, what does that say about how the regard you?
The social engineers are not exactly brimming with respect for the working cogs in the great social machine they seek to fix. The don’t believe in Original Sin as the source of the world’s ills; in a way, they do not believe in ills at all, or, rather, they believe every evil, war or crime, is a mechanical malfunction in the mechanism by which crass material goods are distributed, and that tinkering with human lives as if humans were cogs and gearboxes will make the world-machine cough and sputter and roar to life, and then a miracle occurs, the laws of economics are suspended, and then the golden-walled city of Utopia will float down from the clouds, adorned as a bride for her wedding, and meatpies fly through the air, and popcorn fall as snow, and grog gush from streams and fountains, and all things forevermore be free to all.
The idea that man might suffer a sin like pride or envy or hate or be bent toward evils not to be sated by meat pie and stoup of grog is too gigantically obvious a thought to touch upon their imaginations. What must they think of you, O cattle, if they think to be fattened is all your desire, and hunger your only discontent?
Maybe this Humanity Amendment will bring to their minds the first part of the reality they are so hellbent upon ignoring, that men are men, and not apes and not machines. Since reality does not seem real, maybe abstract legal wording will seem real.
If it works, we can pass other laws to inform the intellectual elite that water will wet you, or fire burn.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
