Previous 11 - 20 Next
These are important subjects. They bear on the emergent Culture of Death that's striving to displace the traditional, life-affirming norms of Western culture. More, there are many individual battles to be fought: those enumerated here and others. Here's my checklist: -- Abortion without restrictions. -- Assisted suicide. -- Involuntary euthanasia of those deemed untreatable or having "no quality of life." -- Compulsory surrender of the organs of the deceased for transplantation. -- Creation of embryos for research and therapeutic purposes. -- Government-enforced "triage" to conserve medical and financial resources. -- Compulsory acceptance of specified therapies. -- Procreation licenses. -- Government eugenics programs: At first, as subsidies to couples with favored genetic characteristics; Later, as compulsory donations of gametes for use in government-supervised breeding programs. -- Conscription for military purposes. -- Conscription for non-military purposes. The overarching theme of all these measures, about half of which are already in place in various Western countries, is that human life has no intrinsic value and bears no intrinsic rights. By corollary, the individual's life does not belong to him, but to the State. Watch for all of them.
Stop liberal hoaxes> Certainly. Inarguably important. BUT: "The case was a fraud: The law had never been enforced and never would have been enforced," A law that is not enforced (whether because no one cares or because it cannot be enforced without violating constitutionally protected rights) is a bad law that weakens respect for all law. It needed to be struck down.
"And what have I done...for the person who is suffering a world away?" This is not Catholicism...or perhaps it's Catholicism for persons who lack all understanding of the words "charity" and "neighbor." God expects us to act charitably (i.e., according to the Golden Rule) toward those whom He places in our path. He does not command that we exert ourselves for unknown persons far away whose conditions might well be their own fault and their own duty to correct. But then, to understand that requires that we understand the connection between "charity" and "caritas," the degree of engagement with another person that requires actual knowledge of him and his circumstances.
In response to:

Random Thoughts

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Dec 30, 2014 9:54 AM
Well, it is an "emeritus" title...
Yes to all of it, and let's add this: the giveaways of left-wing lies are getting easier to spot. For example, Lena Dunham's lie about having been raped was given away by her immediate addition of "by a Republican." No woman serious about the crime of rape would have focused as she did on the rapist's political alignment.
In response to:

Dear GOP: Show, Don't Tell

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Dec 27, 2014 11:59 AM
"One of the main reasons Republicans read their stage direction, I think, is that they see politics as a game." Another reason, possibly even more important, is that when Democrats trumpet their "compassion," the media pour praise all over them, but when a Republican does so, the media lambaste him as some sort of hypocrite -- despite the unassailable fact that Republican policies have done more to alleviate suffering and poverty than any of the nostrums propounded or practiced by the Democrats! GOP candidates tend to run and hide when the media targets them. Their fear, while perhaps excessive, is not wholly irrational.
“[R]ights-claims are always only meaningful within the context of a system of culturally-specific institutions.” Nonsense on stilts. The right to be left alone in the peaceful use of what is one’s own needs no contextual surroundings. If Kerwick is speaking of some other claim of a “right” – i.e., a right to something provided by others – he had best say so. “St. Paul wrote that since “there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God,” “whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed [.]”” Paul of Tarsus was an authoritarian from the Pharisaic tradition and wrongly attempted to impose a great deal of it on Christian teaching and practice. “When a law is intolerably unjust, there is a moral duty—a duty rooted in the natural law—to disobey it.... the law in question, like a law requiring murder, must be wildly offensive to conscience.” Oh? And who gets to decide about that “intolerably unjust” and “wildly offensive” business? Idiots routinely scoff at natural law. Ask them on what basis **justice** is to be defined, and they get tongue-tied and angry. Ask them how to determine when coercive force is morally valid, and they flee the room. Kerwick has demonstrated with this piece that he’s merely an articulate idiot.
Yet speak of the war on Christianity where some militant atheist can hear you, and he'll immediately denounce you as a paranoid hate monger. I wonder what the Prince of Peace thinks of such nonsense? Well, He did say "I bring not peace but a sword." I just thought he was speaking figuratively
Yet another symptom of Washington's hostility to Christmas, to Christianity, and to American traditions generally. (Say, is there anyone out there who still takes Obama at his word about being a Christian?)
Leon Kass's comments in this column are reminiscent of C.S. Lewis's prognostications about "the Conditioners" in his immortal essay "The Abolition of Man." Do we really want Generation N to pre-determine what Generation N+1 will be? What, then, becomes of human freedom? There are aspects of prenatal screening that seem wholly benign, such as testing for genetically based malformations and diseases. Yet for those of us who hold that human life begins with the embryo, these, too, embed a moral hazard. We all want perfectly healthy children...and bright children...and good-looking children...and some of us want our kids to have blue eyes or blond hair! Once the embryo has formed, should genetic surgery or nanotherapy fail to produce the desired configuration, what then? Abort the baby and try again? Where does the progression end, short of the "designer baby" who is exactly what his parents pre-determine him to be?
In response to:

Humbug Narratives

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Dec 18, 2014 6:57 AM
I would hope that that species of blindness is restricted to journalism's **left-liberal** audience. As that's pretty much the only demographic that remains loyal to the Main Stream Media, the correlation, at least, is strong.
Previous 11 - 20 Next