• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Opening a Letter to Neil Gorsuch [W:127]

So, your sources are the nytimes and a source with the title: "If Your Dog Tasted Like Pork, Would You Eat Her? PETA."
MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES ARE USUALLY BETTER THAN JUST ONE IGNORANT SOURCE (like the Bible). And each source I picked was relevant to what I wrote --for example, the PETA source pointed out that newborn humans are not smarter than pigs, and I pointed out in the letter something about "how much brainpower" does it take for an entity to qualify as a person. We don't grant person status to pigs. Why? Because the actual brainpower of pigs is still animal-level brainpower. Which means newborn humans don't have more than animal-level brainpower, and less-developed unborn humans have even less brainpower.

The judges do not have time to read leaders from radical zealots
BUT HOW MUCH OF A LETTER NEEDS TO BE READ BEFORE DISCOVERING IT IS FROM A RADICAL ZEALOT?

that believe abortion should have no limits and the belief that fetus's are the equivalent to parasites.
THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL SUCH THINGS FROM THAT LETTER TO GORSUCH. It is almost exclusively about the nature of personhood, and the Constitution's use of the word "person".

None of the judges on the Supreme Court believe this nonsense
IT DOESN'T MATTER. All that matters is the Fact that the Constitution doesn't use the word "human" even once, the Fact that the Constitution uses the word "person" throughout, and therefore it is important for everyone to know the difference.

and luckily the majority of Americans in this country do either.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. All that matters is the Fact that the Constitution doesn't use the word "human" even once, the Fact that the Constitution uses the word "person" throughout, and therefore it is important for everyone to know the difference.
 
MANY DIFFERENT SOURCES ARE USUALLY BETTER THAN JUST ONE IGNORANT SOURCE (like the Bible). And each source I picked was relevant to what I wrote --for example, the PETA source pointed out that newborn humans are not smarter than pigs, and I pointed out in the letter something about "how much brainpower" does it take for an entity to qualify as a person. We don't grant person status to pigs. Why? Because the actual brainpower of pigs is still animal-level brainpower. Which means newborn humans don't have more than animal-level brainpower, and less-developed unborn humans have even less brainpower.


BUT HOW MUCH OF A LETTER NEEDS TO BE READ BEFORE DISCOVERING IT IS FROM A RADICAL ZEALOT?


THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL SUCH THINGS FROM THAT LETTER TO GORSUCH. It is almost exclusively about the nature of personhood, and the Constitution's use of the word "person".


IT DOESN'T MATTER. All that matters is the Fact that the Constitution doesn't use the word "human" even once, the Fact that the Constitution uses the word "person" throughout, and therefore it is important for everyone to know the difference.


IT DOESN'T MATTER. All that matters is the Fact that the Constitution doesn't use the word "human" even once, the Fact that the Constitution uses the word "person" throughout, and therefore it is important for everyone to know the difference.

6ccccb4c17e9509ef763c7bcd10593124a2e5be490839cdcb3cb29b8dc412307.jpg
 
Hello.
This letter contains various facts combined with amateur legal reasoning, the latter of which your expert legal mind might find "laughable" --and thus entertaining. Hope you like it!

First we note that some things are mediocre while other things have greatness. It is possible that the greatest-of-all thing about the US Constitution (plus Amendments) is the fact that the word "person" is used throughout, and the word "human" is not used even once. In the era of the Founding Fathers the word "person" might have only been a legal construct, but today scientists have been studying the topic, starting with a very simple Question: "What characteristics does a person possess, that a mere-animal entity does not possess?" As a result, some scientists have become convinced that members of various species of dolphins (including killer whales) can qualify as persons, just as it is widely accepted that extraterrestrial alien intelligent beings can qualify as persons, plus computer scientists widely expect that True Artificial Intelligences can someday exist --all three possibilities completely proving that the concepts of "person" and "human" are totally distinct and unrelated concepts.

Basically, the Constitution promotes "person rights", a thing that can reduce inter-species prejudice (and possibly the chances of interstellar war) for millennia into the future. Note that in the era of the Founding Fathers, it was widely believed that angels (very powerful person-class beings) literally walked among men (often in disguise). Which of the Founding Fathers would have wanted to discriminate against them, by only associating Constitutional rights with human-ness??? The concept of "human rights" is, stupidly, nothing more than an invitation for humanity to be punished for short-sightedly paving the way for discrimination/prejudice against all types of non-human persons[SUP](1)[/SUP].

Thanks to modern scientific research, there happens to be an extremely easy way to understand what a person truly is. Just answer this (kind of messy) question: "IF you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical laboratory, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, but rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save YOU-the-person?" See? A person is a mind, not a body! The type of body inhabited by a mind is totally irrelevant to the Constitution --and therefore persons can have extraterrestrial alien bodies, robot bodies, and even dolphin bodies. Furthermore, doctors and scientists and lawyers agree that if a mind doesn't exist, then no person exists[SUP](2)[/SUP] --even if a human body is still alive! Any controversy can be associated with an entirely different question: "How much mind does an entity have to have, to qualify as a person?" Well, the scientists have a lot[SUP](3)[/SUP] of data[SUP](4)[/SUP] about that[SUP](5)[/SUP], too!

Back to the Founding Fathers, who included a very relevant thing in the Constitution, the decennial Census, which required that every person must be counted (except Indians not taxed). The Founding Fathers were there in 1790 to specify the details of the very first counting for the Census. For this letter's purpose it doesn't matter that slaves were only partly counted; what matters is that pregnancies were totally ignored! In those days the unborn were not even considered to be alive before they began to "kick" in the womb (an event called "quickening") --and if they had ever been considered to be persons, the Constitutionally mandated Census required them to be counted!!! This legal Precedent about the non-person status of the unborn has been consistently maintained for well over 200 years, far older than the Roe v Wade Decision. In no Census have pregnancies ever been counted as persons![SUP](6)[/SUP]

[post 2 of 2]

The word "potential" is now a relevant topic . . . *snip for remaining space*

There is not a chance in hell, if read at all, that this will be met by anything but an eye-roll at best by anyone who knows anything about the law.

You'll be tossed away after the first sentence. And if not then, at your first hysterical "????" or "!!!!!" When you write like a ten-year-old, you'll be received as one.
 
Which religious book do the liberals try to keep out of schools? Certainly not the Koran.

I have no idea.


Wrong.


It is clear in scripture that in some way, God creates life in a mother’s womb.

Psalm 139:13 – ‘For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.’


This has nothing to do with abortion, or of me saying religion is not relevant to making laws. And if it's true, then why does a woman have to have sex to get pregnant? (barring fertility treatments like IVF)


Of course, the question for the pro-abortion crowd, is: What divine insight does the pro-abortion crowd think they have to where they can destroy in a mother’s womb that which God is somehow instrumental in creating?

Answer the question?


Bodily autonomy. If it's in MY body, then it's MY choice and nobody else's. No woman should ever have to gestate and give birth against her will.
 
You're writing in caps so that no one can identify you based on your writing-style ?

Good grief. He only writes the first sentence of the paragraph in caps. Why are people so worked up over it that they concentrate on that and not the argument?
 
Well, we are talking about lawyer-type stuff here, and laws can be pretty lengthy. How long or short is the average "friend of the Court" legal brief? Do those things get routinely ignored?

Your text is over a thousand words, so you've exceeded the max length. I don't think an amicus curiae brief is routinely ignored, but your letter isn't one.

There is a PDF linked here to SCOTUS's Rule 37 that discusses length: Five Answers to Common Amicus Brief Questions - Cockle Legal Briefs
 
There is not a chance in hell, if read at all, that this will be met by anything but an eye-roll at best by anyone who knows anything about the law.
I'M SURE YOU DESPERATELY HOPE SO. Only time will tell, however, if any of the points raised in the letters I sent to all the SC Justices will be considered. I do notice how you didn't say there was anything erroneous about the points that I raised....

You'll be tossed away after the first sentence. And if not then, at your first hysterical "????" or "!!!!!" When you write like a ten-year-old, you'll be received as one.
TO BE DETERMINED. One reason for "opening" the letter here was to provide an avenue for response. If a whole bunch of "ifs" happened to occur, of course! And...can you be sure that no one who works at the SC building sometimes accesses the DebatePolitics site? One can never tell what twisty path information might take, to reach a destination....
 
Your text is over a thousand words, so you've exceeded the max length.
REALLY? At the linked page you provided there is this: "The maximum word count for an Amicus Brief at the Petition stage is 6,000 words. The maximum word count for an Amicus Brief at the Merits stage is 9,000 words."

I don't think an amicus curiae brief is routinely ignored, but your letter isn't one.
TRUE. But then I wasn't intending to present a formal legal brief (and am ineligible to do that, anyway; apparently only attorneys with SC credentials can do that). I simply made a length-comparison between my letter and a typical legal document.

Thank you for the link, though.
 
Last edited:
Good grief. He only writes the first sentence of the paragraph in caps. Why are people so worked up over it that they concentrate on that and not the argument?
THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS. They cannot refute my arguments, so they are reduced to nit-picking. Simple!
 
ONLY IF GOD EXISTS. I'm often willing to assume it for the sake of certain arguments. However, that doesn't mean I accept the claim the rest of the time, just because someone claims it. Per the Rules of Debate, you have made a positive claim that you need to support with evidence. Well?


THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "INNOCENT UNBORN" --at least if they are older than about a week after conception. Unborn humans are totally guilty of committing assault, at least 4 different ways, starting with invading the womb, burying part of itself much like a tick's head. It steals biological nutrients from the body of its hostess; it dumps toxic biowastes into the body of its hostess, and it infuses addictive and mind-altering substances into the body of its hostess. Anyone calling the typical unborn human "innocent" is either spouting an Ignorant Lie (a falsehood told in ignorance of Objectively Verifiable Facts), or a Stupid Lie (a lie that is easy to prove is a lie)


IGNORANTLY FALSE. Only persons can be murdered, not mindless animals like ticks or unborn humans. And you know what a person truly is; just Answer this Question: "If you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical laboratory, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, but rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save YOU-the-person?" The words "human" and "person" refer to totally different/unrelated concepts.


GOD IS NOT THAT STUPID/IGNORANT. You are talking about the same God that supposedly knows everything, including all the details about how the physical Universe works in accordance with the Law of Cause and Effect. So, since humans know that partially living things like sperm and ova can exist and interact and produce fully living things like zygotes, that same God should know it too, and doesn't need to do anything for Nature to take its course (follow the genetic programming built into the DNA of the zygote). The Bible was written by folks who had no idea how the Universe worked, and erroneously blamed every little thing on God. Tsk, tsk!


IGNORANCE REPEATED DOESN'T EQUAL FACT. And you should look at Exodus 21:22, because even if God had some sort of interest in an unborn human, an unborn human can still be killed and the penalty for doing that can be **ZERO**.

DOES NOT APPLY TO MOST PRO-CHOICERS. Promoting the freedom to choose to do something, like say smoke marijuana, does not equate with encouraging folks to smoke marijuana. (I support that freedom while I equally think anyone who does it for non-medical purposes is a fool who is committing slow suicide. And there is no contradiction because humanity's long-term survival could be improved by letting fools kill themselves off --would you rather they got their fingers on the nuke buttons?)

IF YOU MAKE THE POSITIVE CLAIM THAT PRO-CHOICE EQUALS ENCOURAGING ABORTIONS, LET'S SEE THE EVIDENCE! Otherwise you are simply spouting a Stupid Lie.

ANOTHER POSITIVE CLAIM COMING UP. Where is the Objectively Verifiable Evidence to support the claim? Tsk, tsk!

WHEN LIARS LIE, THEY CAN BE IGNORED. Duuuuhhhh!!!

THAT WAS HER CHOICE. It does not equate to a demand that others copy that choice.

Nice try with all that. It's obvious you haven't done your due diligence researching the Gospels, etc., or you wouldn't be asking for evidence.

You can start your journey to find the evidences for the resurrection, etc., here, and in dozens of other such works. The Case for Christ.jpg

Also study "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Gary Habermas.

You haven't done your homework in this area.
 
Well, we are talking about lawyer-type stuff here, and laws can be pretty lengthy. How long or short is the average "friend of the Court" legal brief? Do those things get routinely ignored?

Only when sent in anonymously.
 
Tsk tsk... The God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.




Yeah it does. God is the creator of life. Who are you folks to kill who God has created? That's what it has to do with abortion.



View attachment 67217961

Putting the cart before the horse again. It has yet to be proven that a god is the creator of life.
 
I'M SURE YOU DESPERATELY HOPE SO. Only time will tell, however, if any of the points raised in the letters I sent to all the SC Justices will be considered. I do notice how you didn't say there was anything erroneous about the points that I raised....

I don't "hope" anything. I know it for certain. Your letter is written like a fourth grader would, and the only reasonable thing you said in it, vis-a-vis jurisprudence, was that it's filled with "amateur" legal thinking.


TO BE DETERMINED. One reason for "opening" the letter here was to provide an avenue for response. If a whole bunch of "ifs" happened to occur, of course! And...can you be sure that no one who works at the SC building sometimes accesses the DebatePolitics site? One can never tell what twisty path information might take, to reach a destination....

You are deluded if you think anyone will ever take this letter seriously.
 
Tsk tsk... The God of the Bible and Jesus Christ.

There is nowhere in the Bible forbidding a woman from terminating her pregnancy. Even if there was, it would only be relevant to adherents of Christianity.




Yeah it does. God is the creator of life.



Once again, if God created the zef, why does a woman need to have sex to get pregnant without fertility treatments such as IVF?

Who are you folks to kill who God has created? That's what it has to do with abortion.


If it's inside MY body, then *I* am who I am to have it killed. No god created it.





This meme is a load of horse hockey.
 
There is nowhere in the Bible forbidding a woman from terminating her pregnancy. Even if there was, it would only be relevant to adherents of Christianity.
He doesn't seem to realize that the majority of the world's population is not Christian.
 
Do Supreme Court Judges get Fan Mail?
 
Isn't opening another person's mail a Federal Offense?
 
Nice try with all that. It's obvious you haven't done your due diligence researching the Gospels, etc., or you wouldn't be asking for evidence.
AT THIS DEBATE SITE I CAN ASK FOR EVIDENCE WHENEVER ANYONE MAKES A POSITIVE CLAIM. It doesn't matter if I've seen some evidence before; what matters is that the person making the claim needs to be able to provide supporting evidence (might be different from what I've seen before --and, generally, it is well known that the more evidence, the better!).

You can start your journey to find the evidences for the resurrection, etc., here, and in dozens of other such works.
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE IS? People only making **claims** qualifies as "hearsay", and little more. Why would 2000-year-old hearsay be better than modern hearsay?

NOT TO MENTION A CHANGE OF TOPIC. Proof of the existence of Jesus is not-at-all proof of the existence of God. I invite you to think about what folks living 2000 years ago might say if a modern highly-rated stage magician took a time machine back then and did some performances that used only the tools available back then. Do not think I'm suggesting Jesus was a time traveler; the point is simply that non-miraculous means do exist, to do many many things that folks of ancient times might consider to be miraculous.

Also study "The Historical Jesus," by scholar Gary Habermas.
SEE ABOVE. Proof of the existence of Jesus is not the same thing as proof of the existence of God.

You haven't done your homework in this area.
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!
 
Only when sent in anonymously.
DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE FOR THAT CLAIM? Note that one of the things the Government is noted for is, it tends to save all bureaucracy-related stuff, like letters. How many hands will a letter pass through, before getting archived? How many of those hands belong to students and interns and others who want to learn everything they can about laws, and will read everything they get their hands on? I mentioned before that not all the Justices are political conservatives, and not all the staff members of the Justices are political conservatives, and that I sent similar but longer letters to all the other Justices. I therefore have a modestly-reasonable expectation that the main points of my letters will eventually reach the Justices, one way or another.

Those main points are that the concepts of "human" and "person" are totally different/distinct and have nothing to do with each other, that a person is a mind not a body, that there exists a Legal Precedent regarding lack-of-personhood for unborn humans that is far older than the Roe v Wade Decision, that arbitrarily giving unborn humans rights will arbitrarily violate the 13th Amendment rights of pregnant women who don't want to stay pregnant, and that "normal" human mental development is a consequence of Nurture, not Nature. (That last thing basically means personhood is **made**; it is not an inevitable result of purely Natural events, like normal human physical growth.)

Do you have a problem with any of those points?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom