Skip to main content

5 Thoughts For Today

5. I seriously want to know why people whose very purpose is to limit what counts as true knowledge and true science by way of highly questionable philosophical assumptions (or at least unacknowledged ones) get to call themselves "rational" or "enlightened".

4. Just save us time, and admit to being a materialist and a utilitarian. That way, when we wake up in a Stalinist paradise, I can say, "I told you so." If I'm not dead.

3. Abortion and homosexual acts are both grave offenses against the dignity of the human person, and thus, against God, who made us, and took on our human nature to redeem us. They are by no means the only ones, but they are real, and this needs to be said clearly.

2. Is the yet-born fetus a person? The whole abortion issue turns on this question, and this alone. Consequently, there can be no "exceptions" to a prohibition on abortion, if we are to answer in the affirmative. If we answer in the negative, then abortion is not "tragic," except as a rhetorical ploy. Therefore, it is inconsistent to work for limits on abortion, if one has answered in the negative to the central question. May I suggest that those who have answered in the negative, and yet still speak of the tragic nature of this practice suffer the pangs of conscience. I am in no way attempting to take away anyone's freedom or choice; I suggest rather that this choice to take away a life that belongs to someone else (and an innocent someone, at that) cannot be licitly granted, not by individuals, and not by governments.

1. Have a great day.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
You won’t wind up dead in the coming Stalinist paradise. You’ll wind up in the psych ward for “rehabilitation” because of your aberrant beliefs in Catholicism and natural law.

This will be an evangelism opportunity. :-)
7:25 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...
Post a Comment
Read more

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...
Post a Comment
Read more