Sep 27, 2007

King David was Pro-Life

King David admitted both the Pro-Life and Original Sin teachings of the Catholic Church in the same sentence:
Psalm50/51:5 Surely I have been a sinner from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Moses also taught that causing a pre-mature birth that resulted in death (abortion) was murder: EX21:22-24 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]. And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for …

Fruit - yaled, from yalad (begat), something born, lad, offspring.
depart - yatsa, to go out

If the baby lives, the punishment is monetary, but if the baby dies, life for life.


Anonymous said...

As it turns out, the only person with a serious and workable plan for overturning Roe v. Wade right now is Ron Paul, the 1988 Libertarian candidate for president who is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination. In accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Paul's bill would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning Roe through a simple majority vote in Congress.

Why I Am a Catholic Libertarian
by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend

It's not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which the Evil Party. But it remains true, as a conservative wag once said, that from time to time the parties collaborate on something that's both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship.

Although I have no connection to the Libertarian Party, I've long been associated with small-l libertarianism. By the time I was finishing college, I found I could no longer be a cheerleader for the Republican Party, so much of my political evolution involves my disillusionment with the GOP.

For one thing, Republicans don't even pretend to be interested in scaling government back anymore. With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, no one in the recent Republican presidential debates could name a single federal pencil sharpener he'd do away with. And forget about abolishing the department of education or other federal agencies -- what are you, some kind of extremist?

Oh, but we can't seem anti-education, comes the response, even though spending more federal money has done exactly nothing to turn declining test scores around. (Only recalibrating the tests seems able to do that.) If they had a fighting spirit, Republicans would proudly adopt the conservative view and put the left on the defensive: By claiming we need a federal department of education, aren't you really saying that Americans are too dense to run their own schools without supervision from Washington? Why do you think Americans are so stupid?

That won't happen, though: Republicans are too busy proposing their own national "plans" for education (which are leftist in their very nature). So much for subsidiarity, a central principle in Catholic social thought.

A quick glance at the presidential debates reveals that the Democrats can come up with nothing more original than further proposals for looting the American population. I almost don't blame people for being Democrats, incidentally. Americans endure twelve years of propaganda in a government institution, learning (not coincidentally) about the government's glorious deeds and the terrible things that would surely happen to us in its absence. I can hardly blame someone who believes we owe our standard of living to labor unions and federal regulation: After hearing no other perspective on American history year after year, what else can the poor fellow be expected to think?

I don't expect much from the Democrats. But even the boldest Republicans suggest "replacing" the Internal Revenue Service with some kind of horrendous consumption tax. Instead, the IRS should be abolished and replaced with nothing. Impossible? If the income tax were done away with, federal revenues would still be sufficient to fund the federal budget from the year 2000. I rather doubt we would be climbing over corpses on our way to work if spending were scaled back to its level of seven years ago.

Incidentally, if forced labor is wrong when it takes the form of chattel slavery, why is it all right when it takes the form of government confiscation of people's income? Combining federal, state, and local taxes, Americans can easily find themselves handing over half their income to some level of government every year. Slavery was wrong because the slave did forced labor every year of his life, the fruits of which he could not enjoy. American taxpayers do forced labor for half the year. Being forced to work for someone else against your will all year long is a moral abomination; being forced to do so for only half the year is a-ok. I just don't see it.

On foreign policy, I am convinced that the Founding Fathers' counsel of nonintervention is the most sensible and morally sound position. (Heck, it must be right: None of the hacks in either major party recommends it.) When it comes to foreign policy, moreover, young Republicans are so in the dark about their own history that they think opposition to war is "leftist," and that demands to "support our president" in avoidable, multi-trillion-dollar wars are conservative. One scarcely knows where to begin.

But aren't libertarians divided on abortion? Well, yes, but if the polls are any indication, Republicans seem perfectly happy to support candidates who spend half their time trying to figure out where they should stand on the issue that afternoon.

As it turns out, the only person with a serious and workable plan for overturning Roe v. Wade right now is Ron Paul, the 1988 Libertarian candidate for president who is currently seeking the Republican presidential nomination. In accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Paul's bill would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, thereby overturning Roe through a simple majority vote in Congress.

I bet you've never heard about that bill before. That's because neither major party actually wants to see the abortion issue disappear from public life at the federal level -- too much fundraising and grandstanding depend on maintaining the status quo.

We sometimes hear it said that the United States needs a third party. Maybe so. But if we could be permitted a second party, alongside the Republicrats, that would be a pretty good start.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, was the first-place winner in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards for his book The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. His other books include the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, The Church Confronts Modernity, and, most recently, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. A free chapter of his book How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization is available at his website,

JayG said...

We'll have to see if the Republican party begins to distance itself from the Pro-Life movement...I am actually more skeptical of Mitt Romney than I am of Rudy Guiliani. At least Guiliani would nominate strict Constitutionalist, non-activist judges, in contrast to Mitt's record in MA.

Anonymous said...

By Courteney Lario
Special to The Hoya
Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Administrators at the university’s Law Center reversed earlier this month a policy prohibiting funding for students at summer internships at organizations that promote abortion rights, after a widely publicized case in the spring which drew protest from hundreds of students.

Under the new policy, announced by Law Center Dean T. Alexander Aleinikoff in a letter published in the Law Center’s student newspaper, the university will no longer consider the mission of each organization when determining grants provided by a student-run organization to students for summer internships.

Anonymous said...

What ever you do please don't vote for Guiliani!

A 'gay' guide to GOP candidates
Posted: September 27, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Salon magazine recently performed a public service for homosexuals – publishing a thorough "gay" guide to the GOP presidential candidates.

But it's not just a public service for homosexuals. It's also a public service for those of us who see the homosexual political agenda as extremely dangerous to the very survival of our nation.

I thought I would perform a public service myself by making it unnecessary for you to read through a voluminous report in a publication littered with soft-core porn, obscenity, vulgarity and profanity by summarizing it right here.

Who is the most homosexual-friendly of the Republicans seeking the presidency?

It's Rudy Giuliani, hands down, according to the report.

It mentions his comfort in dressing in drag and squealing "with girlish delight when real estate mogul Donald Trump nuzzled his fake breasts." It mentions how, after his divorce, he moved in with his close friends – a homosexual couple he agreed to marry "if they ever legalize gay marriage." It mentions how Giuliani marched in "gay pride" parades and, as late as 2002, wrote a letter commemorating the "triumph" of the 1969 Stonewall riots, the Lexington and Concord of the homosexual activist movement. It mentions that he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage – even in his bid to remake his image as the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

I agree with Salon. Giuliani is, far and away, the most homosexual-friendly person seeking the Republican nomination. It's one reason I wouldn't vote for him. On so many cultural issues, he's part of the problem, not part of the solution for America.

JayG said...

It's pretty bad when you have to debate who's worse, Guiliani or Romney.