Today, Chuckles the Tadpole Queen is in high dudgeon over Rick Santorum noting a certain inconsistency in Chuckles’ god king Ogabe’s rhetoric, saying the following:
“The question is, and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution?” he said. “And Barack Obama says no.
That’s putting it mildly, Rick. On one of the very few occasions when our Fearless Leader could actually be convinced to vote anything other than “present” during his sinecure as an Illinois lawmaker, he actually voted against prohibiting abortion doctors from “correcting their mistakes” by letting live born, viable babies die from neglect in trash bins.
But at least he didn’t vote in favor of the Gosnell Procedure™ of cutting their spinal cords with scissors to expedite the process.
Well, if that human life is not a person, then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.’”
Which is a good point. Once you start drawing the line on who are and who aren’t “people” entitled to the full protections of the Constitution, you need to be very damn careful about where you draw it.
We’re constantly lectured on the “three-fifths of a person” rule in antebellum America and how inhumane it was (ignoring the irony of the fact that that very rule was put in place by damnyankees worried that the slaves, were they counted as full persons, would give the South “too much” representation in Congress) and we positively agree that calling some people more people than other people is against everything that our nation supposedly stands for, but how is that worse than declaring a person “not a person at all?”
All that Santorum is doing is pointing out that:
For decades certain human beings were wrongly treated as property and denied liberty in America because they were not considered persons under the constitution. Today other human beings, the unborn of all races, are also wrongly treated as property and denied the right to life for the same reason; because they are not considered persons under the constitution.
Would somebody please point out to us where the logical disconnect making this an unreasonable point is, because we sure as hell don’t see it. Haven’t we for decades been told that fetuses are nothing more than “clumps of tissue” to be disposed of at will? How is this not considering said fetus the property of somebody else and less than human?
We don’t claim to have The Ultimate Answer™ to the question of abortion. People close to us have undergone the agony of being faced with no good options and being forced to pick the one that seemed the least horrible of them all, but we do believe that it’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
But in Chuckles’ sadly Thorazine-deprived “mind”, for lack of a better word, that’s tantamount to saying that anybody even considering having one is a mass murdering psychopath. Which is why we love making fun of him so much. If he didn’t already exist, we’d have to bloody well make him up for our personal amusement.
Thatisall.