╌>

SCOTUS To Face Challenging Moral Dilemma Of Whether It's Okay To Slice Off Children's Body Parts With Giant Knife

  

Category:  Satire

Via:  gregtx  •  2 weeks ago  •  12 comments

SCOTUS To Face Challenging Moral Dilemma Of Whether It's Okay To Slice Off Children's Body Parts With Giant Knife
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court of the United States is bringing its many decades of collective legal experience to bear as it carefully considers whether a guy slicing body parts off of children with a giant knife is bad.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court of the United States is bringing its many decades of collective legal experience to bear as it carefully considers whether a guy slicing body parts off of children with a giant knife is bad.

Legal scholars have submitted thousands of pages of amicus briefs for review as justices wrestle with the nuances of the morality of drugging children and sterilizing them.

"Should you take a three-year-old, drug him, lay him down on a table, and use a sharp knife to cut off his body parts? Hmm, that's a toughie," said Justice Sotomayor. "Really a mind twister, this one. Cutting off children's genitals for cash... a lot of complex ethical issues to unpack here."

The Supreme Court will hear testimony from children who had body parts cut off, and later grew up and wish they still had their body parts. "So, you're saying that's bad?" asked Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. "I'm having a hard time understanding this. You're saying when you were seven years old, you weren't old enough to be violently sterilized? I am thoroughly confused."

At publishing time, the Court had also agreed to hear arguments about whether stopping a guy about to commit murder on a subway is bad.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
1  seeder  GregTx    2 weeks ago

512 .

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  GregTx @1    2 weeks ago

Some other articles on this topic.  Dems are going to rue the day they went all in on advocating gender "affirmation" (drugs and surgery) and medical intervention in cases of children's gender confusion, rather than providing counseling during a phase of childhood that many of them experience and grow out of.

Justice Ketanji Jackson Makes a Fool of Herself During Oral Arguments – PJ Media

Here's What You Need to Know About the First-Ever SCOTUS Case on the Medical Mutilation of 'Trans' Minors

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Per Sotomayor, it's no different than taking an aspirin, so what's the big deal? 

 
 
 
goose is back
Junior Guide
3  goose is back    2 weeks ago

Who would ever believe this would be a considered.  

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4  George    2 weeks ago
At publishing time, the Court had also agreed to hear arguments about whether stopping a guy about to commit murder on a subway is bad.

Maybe if stopping people from killing someone wasn't so bad, we wouldn't have dead CEO's in Manhattan.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1  devangelical  replied to  George @4    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
4.1.1  seeder  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @4.1    2 weeks ago

What? Getting shot?..

Was he MAGA?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
4.1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @4.1    2 weeks ago

Yep. Some on the looney left are so butt hurt................

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
5  SteevieGee    2 weeks ago

Yep.   Circumcision should be immediately banned.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
5.1  seeder  GregTx  replied to  SteevieGee @5    2 weeks ago

Old school huh?

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
5.1.1  SteevieGee  replied to  GregTx @5.1    2 weeks ago

Old school?  Have they stopped cutting parts of babies' dicks off?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
6  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago

Some of the arguments in this whole thing are unhinged:

Amid oral arguments, pro-DEI Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who   couldn't define what a woman is   during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, compared the case to past laws that banned interracial relationships, saying, "It's sort of the same thing." She specifically likened the current case to the 1967 landmark   Loving v. Virginia   decision   that reversed a rule prohibiting interracial marriage. The latter is structured the same way the Tennessee statute is, she suggested.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor tried to downplay the pediatric "gender care" industry's irreversible and life-altering consequences, arguing that the dangers of such procedures, such as surgically removing a child's healthy body parts, are akin to the risks associated with taking an over-the-counter remedy like Aspirin.

 
 

Who is online

Jack_TX
GregTx
Right Down the Center


280 visitors