Offered without comment…

From LifeNews:

[...] In 2010, they pressed ObamaCare—a top-down, healthcare system takeover—on the American people, and earlier this year, they followed with their abortion pill mandate: a conscience-trampling decree forcing all employers to pay for insurance to cover abortion pills for employees who want them.

Then, on May 31, with the possibility of the passage of legislation in the House of Representatives that would have banned gender selection as a determining factor in abortions, the White House opposed the bill on grounds that it would have “intruded in medical decisions or private family matters.”

In other words, the Obama administration was arguing that the bill would allegedly intrude into decisions best left to individuals. Or, dare I say, it would intrude upon matters of conscience? [...]

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Should Libertarians Be Conservatives?: The Tough Cases of Abortion and Marriage

Does personal virtue secure liberty and If so, what does this mean for the role of government? Jay W Richards, Director of the Center on Wealth, Poverty, and Morality at the Discovery Institute, provides the beginning of an answer. He writes:

Over fifty years ago, National Review’s Frank Meyer made the case for “fusionism,” which joined traditional morality with a defense of liberty and free markets. Meyer and others knew that fiscal conservatism needs social conservatism, and vice versa. A free market allows us to exercise creativity and virtue, for instance, but it also needs a reasonably virtuous citizenry. A population of thieves would create anarchy, not freedom. Unfortunately, the very name fusionism implied that that these were separate concerns that needed to be, well, fused

.

Read the rest http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5259 .

In Christ,

+Fr Gregory

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

President Carter Encourages Democrats to Limit Access to Abortion

(Daily Caller).  Appearing on “The Laura Ingraham Show” Thursday to promote his book “NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter,” former President Jimmy Carter addressed the ever-hot topic of abortion — encouraging fellow Democrats to tone down their focus on the issue.

“I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions and that was one of the problems I had when I was president having to uphold Roe v. Wade and I did everything I could to minimize the need for abortions,” he said, explaining his attempts to streamline adoption and provide aid to poor women through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.

Carter, who does not believe abortions should be outlawed, told Ingraham that he is calling on Democrats to de-emphasize abortion in the party platform.

“I’ve signed a public letter calling for the Democratic Party at the next convention to espouse my position on abortion which is to minimize the need, requirement for abortion and limit it only to women whose life are in danger or who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest,” he said.

According to Carter, reducing the focus on abortion, and advocating for its increasing rarity, would attract more voters to the Democratic Party.

“I think if the Democratic Party would adopt that policy that would be acceptable to a lot of people who are now estranged from our party because of the abortion issue,” he said

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Defending Infanticide

Well, not me, but there are people doing just that. Let me explain.

When a college classmate was in med school in the early 80′s, she was horrified to hear a lecture advocating what he called “extra-uterial abortions.”  For those playing at home, that’s infanticide.

Telling me about the lecture, she said that there were two speakers at the front of the lecture hall. The ob/gyn who was describing the procedure and an attorney who clarified for these future doctors what was and was not currently legal.

What brought this to mind is an essay by Michael Scaperlanda at the law blog site, Mirror of Justice (It is not surprising that Peter Singer is no longer alone in advocating infanticide). He writes on a “peer reviewed article advocating legalization of infanticide.” According to the abstract from the article “what we [the authors] call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.” Continue reading

VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.9.20_1166]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)