Skip to main content

A Modest Proposal to Clarence Thomas

Dear Justice Thomas:

As you know, several states, newly emboldened by your colleagues’ overruling of Roe v. Wade, are now determined to enact laws defining life as beginning at fertilization — which is to say, at the happy moment when sperm meets egg.

I submit to you that this definition lacks both scope and ambition, and is not at all in keeping with your written concurrence with the majority opinion. While that concurrence is in many ways admirable, you nonetheless appear to place far too much value on the egg, and far too little on the sperm.

Sperm is, after all, the male component of the pregnancy process, and, as such, its rights surely must supersede those of any female component that might emerge later in that process.

Consequently, I feel your concurrence pays insufficient deference to the cornerstone of our culture, male dominance. It fails to grant personhood status to the sperm, despite the sperm’s preeminent standing, both as male and as unborn.

Therefore, in the interest of codifying such standing, I modestly submit that the time has come for the nation to enact a strict set of “Masturbation Acts,” and enforce them vigorously.

A Christian society demands that all sperm be reserved for deposit into a fertile female, willing or not, so that the fittest among them can successfully conquer its target egg. We must affirm, in law, the right of every sperm to compete for the impregnation of at least one egg in its lifetime.

A ban on male masturbation is key to meeting this societal imperative. Men shall be required to account for any and all sperm not currently engaged in egg conquest. Men must also prove that no sperm have been improperly handled or unlawfully discharged.

Under these seminal laws, every act of masturbation shall be considered a crime scene, and every man committing such an act shall be subject to charges of first-degree spermicide. Premeditation is assumed.

Performance of such an act in one’s sleep shall in no way mitigate the charges, since sleep, as is well-known, may be feigned.

Further charges may be codified based on extenuating circumstances. These might include masturbating while under the influence, while driving a motor vehicle, while piloting an aircraft, while operating heavy machinery, or while discharging a firearm. All except the last shall be deemed felonies.

Should you choose to commit to these Masturbation Acts, I am confident you will find many allies, including Justice Alito, a staunch originalist, who will be quick to affirm that nowhere in the Constitution do the Founders mention masturbation. Accordingly, there is no clear reason to believe masturbation to be a constitutionally-protected right.

Each sperm, on the other hand, must be thought of as a life in progress, and as such is endowed with rights that remain inalienable throughout the entirety of the long journey from ejaculation to birth.

At which point, of course, all rights expire.

It has been said that justice is blind. If so, I submit that excessive masturbation is surely the cause. You, sir, are invested with the power to cure this blindness, so that justice can see clearly what must be done in the name of personhood.

It’s time for you, Justice Thomas, to take matters into your own hands.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...
11 comments
Read more

Uncertainty is Ready for its Closeup

E very day, we learn a little more about the way the Trump junta operates. We might sum it up with the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later,” but this is not entirely accurate. They do indeed shoot first, mostly with executive orders that are breathtaking in their over-reach, malicious intent, and criminal shortsightedness. But they don’t so much ask questions later, as they send stupid lawyers into court to defend stupefyingly illegal behavior. They tend to fail, but even in failure, the confusion they create works wonders for them. On what must be several dozen fronts since January, MAGA operatives looking to subvert the government have done so, first by launching whatever harebrained scheme they’ve come up with, then by watching for the fallout. The fallout could be in the form of a court ruling, or howls of protest from the victims, or even from Democrats calling them out. But the point is that they depend on that first launch to shake things up, to flo...
1 comment
Read more

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...
Post a Comment
Read more