Since there seems to be some discussion over the definition of the term "woman" these days - yet one more indication of the madness of our times - this author thought it might be a good idea to consult the big dictionary. (Which is how she refers to the two volume dictionary from the 70s that was included in a set of Encyclopedias that was kept when the rest of the set was moved to another home.)
Here is the definition of the word "woman" .
And because one is aware of the nature of people, here is the definition of "female" from that same dictionary. (This author's sincere apologies for the difference in the color. I used a custom white balance for the second shot, although both were done quickly with much upstairs and downstairs movement between.)
In the opinion of this author, any person who would accept a nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States under the caveats put forth by the current occupant of the Oval Office lacks the character to be eligible for that office.
The fact that this woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has accepted the nomination under these circumstances tells us - or ought to tell us had the world not gone mad (or at least those parts of the world with the "loudest" voices) - all we need to know about her character. That she is engaging in such evasion to avoid defining what a "woman" is, is nothing less than cowardice and/or pandering. Those who are to sit as judges on the highest court in the land cannot be those who would indulge in such behaviors.
A woman is a member of the human race that, in the normal course of events, can bear children. This is not to dismiss those who for health reasons such as cancer or age cannot bear children.
This is not an issue of race or sex but of competence. It is a fundamental necessity to the maintenance of the republic that a sitting justice on the SCOTUS be in support of the Constitutionally derived fact that, while an individual has the right to indulge - as far as the law allows - in their delusion, they have no right to compel anyone else to join them in their delusion.
This is not an issue of race or sex but of competence. It is a fundamental necessity to the maintenance of the republic that a sitting justice on the SCOTUS be in support of the Constitutionally derived fact that, while an individual has the right to indulge - as far as the law allows - in their delusion, they have no right to compel anyone else to join them in their delusion.
Genesis 3:16
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Exodus 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
2 Thessalonians 2
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
.
No comments:
Post a Comment