The Christian Vanguard

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 have this libertarian friend. Well, he was a friend. He's cut off contact with me recently. Readers of this blog know I am opposed to libertarianism. I had an exchange with this friend I want to talk about. He put up a video made by these two guys. They were driving and they pulled up to a check point. The police offer, in a polite and upbeat manner, asked them some standard questions. They remained silent. The police officer, not letting the rudeness get to him just keep asking questions, and politely. After silence from the two young men, they asked if they were free to go. The officer, probably a bit confused, called over a superior. After a few moments, they were on their way with no hostility or ominous  attitude. However, there was hostility and a kind of on edge attitude on part of the kids. So, seeing the discrepancy in attitudes, I asked my smart friend, and he is very smart, why didn't they say anything to the police officer? His response was, Because they did...

Libertarians want liberty. Or, the right to do something. The right to own a gun, to smoke pot, to have gay marriage. But this is wrong, if not incoherent. Rights are grounded in natural law. The 10th Amendment reflects this, the Declaration of Independence recognizes this, and St. Paul in his letter to Romans concerning homosexuality employs it. So, we have certain goods for our being. It is good to drink for that is necessary to stay alive. Hence, I'm entitled to water if I ever need it. Sure, you may also have the right to property, but your right to property is not so strong for it to be absolute, and in this case doesn't trump my right to your water if I'm dying of thirst, for it is wrong to die. So, if rights come from natural law, and natural law is that which is good, we cannot have a right to something that is bad. We can debate the merits of whether a thing is bad or not, but if it's the case that something is bad and contrary to the natural law, like suicide...