Tshirts, Coffee Mugs, Hoodies, and More!

BWCMarketing

Can Abortion Be Justified?

Abortion ends a human life.

One of the major arguments used in an attempt to justify abortions surrounds the right of a woman to do whatever she wants to do with her own body.  Is an unborn baby actually a part of a woman's body or is the baby a separate individual attached to the mother's body for life support and nourishment?

There are some facts concerning this argument that even a layman can understand:

• The blood type of the unborn child may be different from the mother and the body cannot function with two different blood types.

• The genetic markers (cells) of the unborn baby are genetically distinct from the mother

• There is a good possibility the unborn child will be a male, obviously the mother is female

• There are cases where the unborn child has died and the mother survived

• There are cases where the mother died and the unborn child survived

In the case of People of the State of Calif v. Scott Lee Peterson, Scott Peterson was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife.  Since his wife was pregnant, her death also resulted in the death of their unborn child.  Mr. Peterson was convicted on two counts of murder, one for his wife and one for his unborn child.  There should be no doubt that the legal system in this case considered an unborn baby to be a person and a separate individual.

Should A Human Ovum Be Granted Legal Personhood?

A human ovum in and of itself is no more than a female germ cell or egg. It is not a "person" and should not be granted "legal personhood". Since we are including the word "human" here, that would seem to grab the conscious of some people and make them think that we were talking about a human life, not a "human ovum".

Human reproduction cannot take place using only a female ovum any more successfully than it can by using only male sperm. It takes both.

In order to determine an approximate due date in a pregnancy, the doctor normally counts forward 40 weeks from the woman's last menstrual period. This means that the woman's last period is actually counted as part of her pregnancy when she actually wasn't pregnant.

Since I am not a doctor or biologist, I had to get some expert advice on this topic and I chose the Mayo Clinic and according to them, pregnancy begins with a fertilized egg (ovum). When the egg or ovum and sperm unite, they form a one-celled entity called a "zygote", so you see, it isn't called an "ovum" anymore. The chromosomes in the zygote contain genetic material that will determine the baby's sex, eye and hair color, height, etc.

Should Protestors Be Banned From Military Funerals?

Protesting military funerals is disrespectful

In May 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act", which limited protests near certain military funerals. Here is a portion of that law:

"Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act - Prohibits a demonstration on the property of a cemetery under the control of the National Cemetery Administration or on the property of Arlington National Cemetery unless the demonstration has been approved by the cemetery superintendent or the director of the property on which the cemetery is located.

Prohibits, with respect to such a cemetery, a demonstration during the period beginning 60 minutes before and ending 60 minutes after a funeral, memorial service, or ceremony is held, any part of which demonstration: (1) takes place within 150 feet of a road, pathway, or other route of ingress to or egress from such cemetery property and includes, as part of such demonstration, any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the funeral, memorial service, or ceremony; or (2) is within 300 feet of such cemetery and impedes the access to or egress from such cemetery."

In the final decision about whether or not to punish those who would protest a military funeral, we must first determine when protesting at or near a funeral service ceases to be "freedom of speech" and starts infringing on a person's "right to privacy".

Was The Supreme Court Correct In Roe v Wade?

Did the Supreme Court Make A Mistake?

The entire foundation of the Roe v. Wade court case was a lie, as has since been admitted to by Norma McCorvey (Roe). Norma McCorvey was 21 years old, pregnant and scared. Abortions in the state of Texas were against the law and Ms. McCorvey didn't have the money to get an illegal abortion.

By the way, this was Ms. McCorvey's third pregnancy.

In 1970, Norma McCorvey, a doctor by the name of Hallford, and a couple called John and Mary Doe filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all women in similar situations, with all three cases being thrown out and the Texas law being reaffirmed.

Norman McCorvey testified that she had been raped by two men and later recanted that testimony by saying that she had gotten pregnant by her boyfriend.

Ms. McCorvey gave birth to her child and put the child up for adoption. Today, there is a woman alive and well, who could have very well been the first legal abortion in the state of Texas.

Even though Norma McCorvey had given birth to her child, she filed an appeal of her case to the United States Supreme Court.

Her case was heard by the Supreme Court the same day another case filed by a woman from Georgia was heard. Attorneys argued before the Supreme Court that the Georgia and Texas laws were unconstitutional in that they both infringed on a woman's right to privacy.

American Flag: Love It Or Burn It

U. S. Flag - Symbol of Freedom

The concern for protecting our American flag and the debate over flag desecration has been going on since the end of the Civil War.

It became such an issue of concern that 48 states passed laws making flag desecration illegal. Most of these state statutes made it illegal to deface our American flag in any way, using the flag for advertising purposes, publicly burning, spitting on, or otherwise showing disrespect for the flag.

In 1907 our U. S. Supreme Court upheld these state laws with an 8 to 1 ruling in a case where a Nebraska bottling company owner sold a bottle of beer with the American flag printed on the label.

The decision of the Supreme Court reads, in part:

"For that flag every true American has not simply an appreciation, but a deep affection. No American, nor any foreign-born person who enjoys the privileges of American citizenship, ever looks upon it without taking pride in the fact that he lives under this free government."  (Source: U. S. Supreme Court - Halter v. Nebraska)

In 1968, our U. S. Congress passed the "Federal Flag Desecration Law" in response to a flag burning incident in protest of the Viet Nam war.

So, up until 1968 our American flag was highly respected, appreciated and protected, but that was soon to change.

Should Religious Organizations Participate In Politics?

Religious organizations and politics

If we mean that government should not respect one religion over another, that answer is pretty clear in the Constitution. If we actually mean, that someone who is a Christian should not run for public office, then the answer would be - that's totally ridiculous.

In 1796, George Washington said a prayer at Valley Forge and in that prayer, I think he put everything in perspective. Here is a portion of that prayer:

"Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son, Jesus. Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

"To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian."

Here is a portion of Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address given on March 4, 1865:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

Polygamy In The United States

Does polygamy violate basic rights?

The practice of "polygamy" is founded in the Later Day Saint movement, also known as Mormonism, which was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in the mid-1800s. Smith translated and published the Book of Mormon and organized The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1830.

It was believed that Joseph Smith promoted and practiced polygamy, but due to the lack of public records, the exact number of Smith's wives continues to be debated. Smith denied the allegations that he either promoted polygamy or had more than one wife up until his assassination in 1844 during his campaign for President of the United States.

The Mormons settled in Utah when it was only a territory and it was this group who actually applied to Congress for statehood. Congress would never allow a territory to become a state as long as polygamy was practiced.

Congress passed several laws making polygamy a crime, including the Edmund-Tucker Act of 1887. This Act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. As a result of this new law, polygamists were hunted down and imprisoned, church properties were confiscated and even the right of Utah women to vote was revoked.

In many test cases, the U. S. Supreme Court declared these laws to be Constitutional. To avoid arrest, many polygamists took to the "underground" and formed their own groups in other areas of the country.

Parental Consent For Underage Children Abortions

With teenage abortions - there are no "do overs".

It seems strange to me that we would see "underage children" and "abortion" in the same sentence.
The abortion procedure in itself is the voluntary murder of an "underage child".

The Age of Consent

So, who actually are these underage children? States differ in what they consider the "age of consent", for example - In Florida, the age of consent is 18, In Missouri it's age 17, and in Delaware it's age 16. These "ages of consent" mean that the laws of the state uphold a persons right to have sex with whomever they please as long as they have reached the age of consent.

For a person to have sex with a person under the age of consent would mean that person has violated a state law, either sexual assault, statutory rape, sexual misconduct with a child, or some other law by another name. In a situation where criminal charges were filed, the parents would most certainly be involved.

Parental Consent Is Required

Most children under the age of 16 are:
(1) living at home
(2) in school
(3) unemployed

These children are totally dependent on their parents for food, clothing, shelter and just about any other aspect of living. These kids require parental consent to even go on a field trip with their class at school. These kids require parental consent to even get their ears pierced. Parental consent is required for a child under age 16 to have medical treatment or any type of surgical procedure. Since the abortion procedure is normally a "surgical procedure", why should it be treated any differently?

Right To Bear Arms Under The Constitution

Should our right to bear arms have limits?

According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, “fundamental rights” may include, but are not limited to, the right to vote, the right to run for public office, the right to marry or divorce, and the right to fairness in our criminal justice system.

Webster’s New World Law Dictionary defines a fundamental right as “A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference”.

Our Constitution was originally written without any "Amendments", but we were not satisfied that these original words were clear enough to convey the actual intended purpose, so some changes were necessary and the "Amendments" were added. Since these "Amendments" can't really stand on their own, they must be a further explanation or clarification of some other part of the Constitution, right?

So what are these "Amendments" amending?

Let's take a look at the original Constitution:

Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution reads, in part:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Is The Constitution A Living Document Which Should Change Over Time?

How far can we stretch the U. S. Constitution?

In a recent interview with U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on the CBS news program 60 Minutes, correspondent Lesley Stahl raised several questions regrading the U. S. Constitution, since our U. S. Supreme Court is charged with interpreting our Constitution and normally making a final decision on any Constitutional issues.

Justice Scalia practices a philosophy of what he calls "originalism", meaning that he chooses to interpret our Constitution based on the meanings and intentions of the people who ratified it over 200 years ago. He went further to say, "Society doesn't change through a Constitution."

Even though our Constitution is certainly an enduring document that we must all defend each and every day, our Constitution is not a "living" document that requires amending each time a rogue judge wants to create "rights" not actually in our Constitution or when we want the Constitution to say what we would like for it to say?

The words in our Constitution should be interpreted with the same meanings of the people who ratified it?

Should Parents Who Leave Children Unattended In Cars Be Charged?

Children should not be left in cars for convenience.

Many loving, well-meaning parents and other caregivers in all levels of our society leave children unattended in vehicles every day for a number of reasons.  Usually it is for the sake of convenience.

It just seems to be a lot of trouble to undo seat belts or car seats and get the kids out of the car just to go into the store for a few minutes.  If these parents thought about and totally understood the dangers involved in leaving a child unattended in a vehicle, there would probably not be any deaths of these children.

According to an article at WebMD:

"Every summer, heartbreaking and preventable deaths happen when children are left alone in hot cars. More than 600 U.S. children have died that way since 1990, according to the nonprofit safety group Kids and Cars. "

The majority of parents wouldn't even dream of leaving a child alone in a vehicle, but for some reason there are some parents who just don't seem to understand the dangers.

Evaluating U. S. Abortion Laws

Abortion laws must change to protect human life.

Just the mention of the word "abortion" can very quickly result in very heated debates and discussions with no real winners and yet the losers are always innocent babies.

We seem to have become a nation in which we no longer desire to pattern our lives and behaviors around our existing laws, but always want to change the laws to justify a pattern of how we want to live and behave.

We invent terms in an effort to make our cause seem believable or just. A good example of this inventive spirit are the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", both of which are highly detested by this writer. These four simple words have actually divided a nation and there seems to be no end to that division. So, just who are these people?

 

The "Pro-Choice" Abortion Philosophy

This group feels very strongly that a "woman" should have the "right", under the law, to kill the baby inside her if she believes the baby is causing damage to her health, interfering with her career, is the wrong sex, is causing a strain on her relationship, is an unwanted child, or any other reason of convenience. This group also feels that the woman has the "right" to keep her baby if that is her "choice". So, basically, this group will vote either way.

 

The "Pro-Life" Abortion Philosophy

This group feels very strongly that since "life" is the basic right given to all of us by our Constitution and since a baby, even while inside the womb, is a human being at the very beginning of "life", killing that baby is wrong and should not be legal under our laws. Many people in this group also feel that a woman's medical care, while pregnant, should totally be controlled by her doctor and not by attorneys and the courts, since many times medical complications will arise requiring tough decisions by the mother, the father, and the doctor.

Domestic Violence And The Right To Bear Arms

Should domestic violence impact our right to bear arms?

The thought of any man or woman intentionally inflicting violence or abuse in any domestic relationsip is appalling.

Oftentimes, domestic violence begins in a less physical manner with emotional and psychological attacks on the victim, but in many cases of domestic violence the violent behavior will escalate to making threats with guns or other weapons. In many cases these threats are actually carried out.

If we were to make a decision based solely on our logic and our feelings, most of us would probably say that anyone who engages in violent behavior in a marital or live-in relationship, should not have access to a lethal weapon. That would make very good sense.

Whether or not a person "accused" of domestic violence should lose the right to bear arms brings up two very complex and very different issues.

Should The Age Of Sexual Consent Be Standardized?

Do you know your state's age of consent?

State laws regarding "age of consent" should not only be standardized, but also equally enforced for both the males and the females.

It was not until the 1920s that states within the United States actually started raising their "ages of consent", with most states settling on ages from 14 to 18.

Prior to 1889, the age of consent in California was age 10. That's right, a 10 year old in California could participate in sexual activity and be within the law. In 1889, California raised the age of consent to 14, in 1897 to 16 and in 1913 to age 18.

I have always understood that when states make laws, they are to protect the people. But when a state sets the age of consent to, let's say 16, who is the law really protecting? In establishing these age of consent laws, it seems that the age of the male makes absolutely no difference.

Criticism And Free Speech Under The U. S. Constitution

We are guaranteed the right of free speech, including the right to criticize private individuals and public figures, by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which states; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The U. S. Supreme Court recognized this principle in 1941 in the case of Bridges v. California - 314 U.S. 252(1941). 

This case involved the conviction of a labor leader for publishing a telegram in the newspaper. He had sent this telegram to the Secretary of Labor, in which he criticized a court's decision in a labor dispute and stated that if the court's decision was upheld there would be a strike.

Should Fathers Have A Say About Abortion?

This is a tougher question than it appears on the surface.

The obvious answer would be "Yes", the father had an equal share in producing the baby and should have an equal share in the decision to kill it. Just debating the whole issue kind of makes me sick.

But, I think this question goes much deeper. The decision on whether or not to consult with the father would seem to depend on the status of the relationship between the mother and the father. If the father had just skipped town, he might say "Sure, go ahead and kill it.", with no real concern for what happened. This could possibly persuade the mother to do something totally against her will.

How about the father who is an alcoholic and his vision of reality is never clear. Do we think that he would be in any position to give the mother any kind of worthwhile direction or advice?

Views On The Death Penalty

Is the death penalty fair and just punishment?

There is a 61-year-old prison inmate sitting on death row in the state of Florida who was sentenced to death at the age of 27. In his 34 years of solitary confinement on death row, he has not been allowed to associate with other inmates and has not been allowed to be "productive" in any way in the prison population. The massive number of appeals in his case have cost the tax payers thousands and thousands of dollars, with more appeals to come.

In the state of Ohio, there are currently 180 prison inmates on death row, some who were given the death penalty as early as 1984.

According to national statistics in 1996, there were 3,242 prison inmates on death row and in 2006, there were 3,228 under sentence of death. These same statistics indicate that in 2006, 53 of those inmates who had received the death penalty were actually executed, compared to 42 executions that took place in 2007.

Are Christmas Symbols Constitutional?

The "Nativity" is a symbol of love and family.

Jews only celebrate holidays mentioned in the Old Testament, where Christians celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ which happens to appear in the New Testament.

So what do Jews do on December 25th? Some go out for Chinese and others use this time for a family get together. So there is a celebration of families coming together during this time of year.  That's what Christmas should be.

Halloween was brought to America around the 1840s, but origins of Halloween date back to the 5th century BC. People believed that the spirits of the dead would come back and try to inhabit the souls of the living, so they wore scary clothing to hopefully confuse the ghosts and make them believe that they were already dead. Priests would go to the homes of people who had lost relatives and pray for their dead souls in exchange for cakes and other treats.

Is It Possible To Ban Religion From All Public Places?

Banning religion from all public places is impossible.

The postings of "In God We Trust" on government and other public buildings around the country are constant reminders of how this nation was founded on religious principles. So, is it a good idea or even possible to ban religion from all public places?

 

Religious motto on currency and coins

In 1861, then Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Chase wrote the following letter to the Director of the Mint at Philadelphia:

"Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition. It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States."

This motto on currency and coins is not an exercise of religion, but only a reminder of those heroes who gave every citizen the right to practice religion openly and freely.