The Christian Vanguard

No. As St. Thomas Aquinas argued ,  In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common. ...whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law , to the purpose of succoring the poor. ...if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery. I've written about this before, in my post about why I am not a libertarian, but I've been meaning to go back and edit that post. But anyways, imagine that I have labored to gain property rights over all the water in the world. Say that a man, and certainly all men but one will do, ne

I asked a single buddy of mine why he doesn't look for a woman who is like him, someone who undergoes dialysis. His response was an obvious one, that he didn't want to risk children who would have kidney failure like him and his hypothetical wife. It's something I've written briefly about before when discussing PGD. So, consider the case with most people. A couple gets together and has a baby. This baby is normal and healthy. Easy peasy. Not much to see here. Now, another couple, they have a baby and the baby is born deaf. Not the parents fault. Nobodies fault. Just happens sometimes. But let us ask, if the parents could go back in time so that their baby would never be born, would they do it? It seems wrong for them to say yes. Their love for their child is the same independent of whether he turns out to be deaf. Now, consider a deaf couple. The husband and wife are both deaf, and genetics makes it certain that their child will also be deaf. Is there a problem here?

I recall a pretty bad rejection experience. 

Here is my Amazon review for this short book.

Here is a brief review I wrote on Amazon for this resentful little book.

I had a guy ask me, "Will I go to hell because I don't believe in Jesus?"  Not really, and I want to put emphasis on the word "because." We do not go to hell because we do not put our trust in Jesus, as though we were perfectly innocent and our refusal to believe in Jesus is what sent us to hell. If we were perfectly innocent, Jesus wouldn't be necessary. But why is Jesus necessary for salvation? Because we have sinned, and it is our sin that sends us to hell, not the refusal to believe in Jesus.  Here is an analogy. You don't know how to swim, and you're in a pool of water. You will die. Why? Because you can't swim to safety. If you die, it is because you can't swim. Say I throw you a life raft to save you. Will you die because you didn't grab the life raft or because you didn't know how to swim? Clearly, you still died because you didn't know how to swim. It wasn't because of your refusal to grab the life raft. 

It has been a while since I posted my reply to Douglas Jacoby's short outline on contraception. I shortly received feedback, which I did request, but elsewhere, and not directly here, though I would appreciate it if it were posted on my blog. I didn't immediately respond, since I was busy with other things, like getting a girlfriend. A much wiser use of my time I think. Anyways, I'm finally getting around to responding to what the members of the ICOC have said in response to my response .