“How Will You Answer?”

The Omega Nebula


Despite the way some of my detractors like to characterize me, I don’t demonize those with whom I disagree.  Good and honest people can see things very differently.  (Which is not quite to say that all of the people of whom I’m critical are good and honest.  A few of them, sadly, don’t seem to be, and, in fact, a small handful of them have spent a great deal of time and effort seeking to demonize me.  But the general point holds.)


Although I think he’s spectacularly wrong on many issues and that his policies are badly hurting America, and though I devoutly hope that he’ll move out of the White House come January, I don’t demonize Barack Obama.  He seems, in several ways, a decent enough fellow, a good husband and father, a likable guy.


But this, to me, represents an insuperable moral issue.  And I don’t want somebody on the opposite side of it from me to be naming Supreme Court justices over the next four years.



An important voice, even where I quibble or outright disagree
A bit of scientific background for understanding the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore
Joseph Smith, and one who betrayed him
Gay "marriage," the end of the First Amendment, and the centralization of State power?
  • David
  • Raymond Takashi Swenson

    In the original Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court, finding a constitutional right to abort your own child, Justice Brennan rationalized the decision by arguing that, in the last trimester of pregnancy, when medical science had already demonstrated that it could save meny children born prematurely, each state had a sufficient interest in protecting the life of a child that could potentially survive on its own, that it could fully regulate and even prohibit abortions of children who had a basic ability to survive apart from their “mothers”. Yet the insistence of advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood and the Democratic Party has led many people to assume that mothers have an inviolable right to kill their own children right up to the point of live birth.

    How do any of the arguments for abortion justufy killing a baby that is ready to be born? The health risks to the mother have already been borne and survived. The process of abortion of a developed baby are just as hazardous to the mother as giving normal birth. The trauma of carrying a pregnancy due to rape or incest has been borne successfully and will soon end. There are waiting lists of families ready to adopt a child and relieve the mother of all the burdens of raising a child. She had months in which to exercuse ger choice about having a child, and her choice was to carry the baby, certainly to term. No rational human being could intend to go through months if pregnancy just so she could kill the lide inside her when it was ready to become ibdependent. Only a miral monster could make that chouce. So what value is being protected and upheld by killing a full term baby?

    It is the value of Might Makes Right, of a raw demonstration of the power of life and death over the most innocent human beings on earth. It is to feed the raw hunger for evil that drives a serial killer. There is no scrap of good intent in the killing of a full term baby.

  • Darren

    Nominating Supreme Court justices is one of the most under talked issues of this campaign. Getting just one justice who carries an originality view of the Constitution can tip the balance of the court’s rulings in many beneficial ways.