| |  
Food for the Poor Godspy.com: Faith at the Edge



Zarchne | 0 posts | Member since 09.21.08


RE: The Democrats are Blowing the Election—and the Catholic Vote
If "the Democrats wake up on November 5 having lost an election that should have been theirs, they" most likely will attribute it to racism (perhaps even correctly).

RE: Pro-Life vs. Family Values? Is Newsweek's Jacob Weisberg promoting eugenics?
Although I agree that abortion is under no circumstances morally permissible, I think it is unfair or shallow to refer to Weisberg's argument -- that the absolutist pro-life position is "ethically flawed" -- as "bizarre", "strange", "twisted", and so forth. He does make a number of observations that appear to be false, but apart from a clear understanding (which has grown increasingly rare over the last millennium, and reached a tipping point in the last century) of the meaning of Christ's passion and death -- namely, that through the humble, loving acceptance of suffering (on his part, or joined with his) grace and eternal life are merited -- utilitarianism is a fairly commonsense philosophy. When he uses the term "moral trade-offs", he means (I presume) that decisions have to be made about who is going to be allowed to suffer. The idea that society (and in particular, the state) has neither the means nor the responsibility to eliminate all suffering is simply not part of the left's worldview. I suppose via the Holocaust/Shoah the word "eugenics" received a poor reputation, but eugenics was (and necessarily remains) an integral part of the the modern birth control movement founded by Margaret Sanger. It is also a basis for IVF and derivative techniques to provide desired births, and is thus among the roots of the embryonic stem cell question. Also, I imagine it is indeed difficult to understand that there is a hierarchy of values in a society which generally attempts to squash all hierarchies.

RE: How to avoid the next war
Chassup: I think the term "neoconservative ideologues" here refers to those who advance the belief that we should use American military action -- rather than creating "stable", "friendly" dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's (and Augusto Pinochet's, etc. et al.) -- use it to create "stable", "friendly" democracies. I take it a true traditional conservative would say that, while we should be prepared to use all necessary force to defend our own national sovereignty, we shouldn't be interfering and intriguing in foreign governments at all. Whereas those on the left/liberal end of the spectrum are going to be promoting socialist governments here and abroad.

Faith at the Edge Traces