Skip to main content

I stand behind what I said about abortion

   I am already aware that discussions about women's rights to abortion go into areas of debate such as "when a fetus can viably be considered as a person." I am under no obligation to heed or incorporate into my thinking the basic tenets on the subject as decided by the courts of law. My presuppositions are not from the secular courts. I would rather be in accordance with the truth of the matter. I have the Scriptures, so I can know that life begins at conception. That's why I paint abortion as the legalized murder of unborn children. If you were an attorney such as Hillary Clinton was, then you would have wanted to argue with me or paint those assertions as stupid because I said nothing about the legal background or what goes/went into those types of decisions. I don't really have to. My remarks were pithy and concise because I don't have much time to put into my writing or blogs.
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We Have Freedom of Speech, right?

   How come everyone seems so afraid to speak against the real politik in our country? We used to have lively political discussion and dissent, and now people with minority opinions seem scoffed at and outcast. This is a bad trend, don't go in that way. The first amendment was set up with one of the intentions being that people would be able to criticize those in charge. It is unbelievable that people could say that a scenario happened like Pearl Jams' "Dissident" describes, and these things happen on American soil?    The 1992 Presidential election is something to look to consider the way things used to be. Third party independent candidate Ross Perot was considered as having equal weight as the two other candidates. There was a strong freedom of the thought in the political spectrum. Perot's money went a long way for him. All things considered, though, billionaires still exist. Where are the Ross Perots of our time, then, who are not afraid to jump in and shake...
Post a Comment
Read more

Link to my new book- "The Semantolkino'hara and Its Applications"

  The book has a been long time in the works, and you can get it now on magcloud. Thanks to the many who helped.    This book is what The Glorious Scenario magazine was supposed to be. It makes a more concise statement than a multi-issue journal, though. The raw creative materials involved in the discussion have many applications and tie-ins across subject areas. The template of the semantolkino'hara will give its user acumen. The Semantolkino'hara and Its Applications: The Eschaton, Musicology, and The Name of God By David Black 122 pages, published 10/10/2014 A practical music theory and composition system became a template for understanding a union between disciplines- music history, musicology, eschatology, social science, and more. The whole effort started with a simple serial analysis of Trish Phan's "A Letter" and became a huge undertaking once the implications...
Post a Comment
Read more