Roe v. Wade Overturned!
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,037
    Well, that's unfortunate. But look, the CMAA, while welcoming of non-Catholic members, is first and foremost a Catholic organization, which includes all of its activities… and that means this forum as well. It wasn't irrelevant — the fact that people are or will make new musical decisions on a moment's notice is important, even if you find it tangential. The rest of the discussion might be irrelevant, but occasionally meta-discussion is necessary, and to be honest, I don't think it's irrelevant at all. I wish no ill of clerics and pastors who are very strongly pro-life* and who make it known on a regular basis from the pulpit, however much I wish they'd preach on practical spirituality which by its very nature opens one's eyes to this teaching and how horrible American culture is. It's just that being overtly pro-life, contrasting sharply with most of the Jadot bishops, didn't always mean liturgical traditionalist or even Reform-of-the-Reform conservative, though I wager that most members of this forum wished it did, even to a more limited extent than myself, given that some members are just fine playing at not just the NO but the NO mostly in the vernacular with varying degrees of ceremonial "elaborateness."

    (as an aside, tomjaw's just over here raising the next 007… this is a joke — the canonical Fleming character is half-British, half-Swiss, though the character is only Scottish at the end of the series, once Connery had impressed Fleming sufficiently.)
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,725
    @MatthewRoth My mother was born in Scotland of a Highland family... I have 9 children, 5 boys are serving the eldest is 15 and is one of our senior MCs. My eldest girl (16) is doing the flower arranging for the parish. I have 2 more boys and a girl still to make their First Holy Communion. All my boys will have to do military service to keep their Swiss passports, and also if they are of sufficient height etc. they will all be eligible to join the Swiss guard.
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,167
    @ScottKChicago I've been here one month longer than you -- plenty of time to learn to ignore what I don't want to talk about and cherish all that's of value here. Do the same!
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    This irrelevant thread has made me decide to end participation in this forum after 15 years.

    Another snowflake withers away.

    For heaven's sake... seriously.

    As I've pointed out before: no one is required to participate in any thread, nor even read them. I regularly ignore certain threads if they are of no interest or use to me.

    If celebrating the fact that children can no longer be murdered on the basis that there is no longer a federal mandate upsets you, then don't read this thread on the topic. (Also, have a hard think about whether or not you're even Christian.)
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    It wasn't irrelevant — the fact that people are or will make new musical decisions on a moment's notice is important, even if you find it tangential. The rest of the discussion might be irrelevant, but occasionally meta-discussion is necessary, and to be honest, I don't think it's irrelevant at all.

    Nor do I. As soon as my pastor and I chanted the Te Deum, he came right down to my office to discuss changes to this weekend's music to acknowledge this momentous occasion. We will be chanting the Te Deum at the end of every mass, as well as singing a particular hymn that I had not previously scheduled.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    I worry that Catholics become too caught up in the legal aspects of abortion and lose sight of the real issue, which is that extinguishing life out of convenience is not even seen as a moral quandary.
    The only Catholics who think about it that way are the pro-choice Catholics.

    The reason the rest of us are so “caught up” in the legal aspects is that it is easier to convince non/irreligious people and providers to teach and provide more responsible and ethical options when there isn’t the easy fallback onto abortion.
    They don’t care that there really are options and crisis centers as long as there is easy access to abortion nearby.

    As Charles said, our state is one of the ones with an anti-abortion trigger for when Roe became defunct.
    Thank God for that! Now we can even more effectively work to save more lives.
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 990
    This irrelevant thread has made me decide to end participation in this forum after 15 years.


    A reminder of how this thread started:

    The United States Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade!


    That's it. A statement of fact. Read what you will into the punctuation, but that would be acceptable on either side of the aisle, really.

    It was not a value judgment, endorsement of any legal principles, particular call to any action on the part of the CMAA or its members. It was a statement of fact with the implied invitation to react, respond, discuss, etc.

    The category assigned to this thread was "General Discussion." Yes, it is non-musical. But there is a category for that -- "General Discussion: Music." What should go into that category, anyway, if not this kind of thing?

    I'm very confused indeed. Is it not timely to discuss a major news item with one's online community of professionals?

    ?
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,922
    Here's another statement of fact:

    I just returned from confession at my home parish to find that one of the saint statues in the rectory garden has been beheaded. The acts of malice have begun.

    . . . But hey, sorry if this thread was offensive in expressing differing viewpoints in a safe and relatively courteous manner. I'm sure there's plenty of other venues conducive to Pearl Clutching (Great-Priced ones or otherwise).
  • lmassery
    Posts: 407
    Te Deum! Glory be to God!
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    Praise God, and don’t think this fight is over.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,700
    The fight will never be over until the BVM makes her move
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Elmar
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    ‘Twould seem She’s made Her first move!
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Jani tomjaw
  • Elmar
    Posts: 502
    I think the fight against evil - in the world as well as my own heart - will never be over until the last judgment (universal / personal).
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • AriasitaAriasita
    Posts: 31
    I feel it necessary to speak for he who was regrettably called ‘snowflake.’ I can only speak for myself, but I would frequent this forum for the bottomless wealth of knowledge about sacred music available here, for free! Beautiful conversations were fostered and inspired by the love of the treasury. There was great delight in knowing liturgies of which commenters would describe their participation were occurring throughout the world. That said, the level to which differing opinions seem to be treated is troublesome and nowhere approaching charitable, particularly in threads that at best are only tangentially related to sacred music. The fear of posing an alternate vantage point or asking a clarifying question is very real. I have received messages from people too afraid to post, and I share their fear. Because I am quite certain, once I click post, these brief comments will be quoted and torn apart line by line. Other words I’ve spoken in previous postings may even be recycled to illustrate my culpability for turns this thread has taken. Or, as in one posting above, my very Christianity will be called into question. It is with all sincerity that I wish for your Te Deums this day to resound beautifully.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,951
    Some of the other sections of the forum have more focus on specific areas of music. This is general discussion and we love getting off topic. As far as the discussions go, pick your areas of interest. There is a wealth of musical knowledge and experience here.

    I have heard of this charity of which you speak. Sounds like a bad habit to me.

    In all seriousness, my area of the country is surrounded by "progressive" Protestants who notice nothing that doesn't fit into their world view. Charity can become delusional.
    Thanked by 3Ariasita Jani tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    Perhaps my jab was harsh, but I also cannot fathom why someone would be upset by a thread rejoicing over a major blow to the satanic death cult that is abortion—on a Christian forum, and a Catholic one at that. How there could be anything but rejoicing at such a development (notwithstanding the new challenges that now lay before us) is a mystery to me.

    I do my best to be charitable around here (as do most others, I sincerely believe). There are strong opinions on the forum, no doubt, but people are often too sensitive too: reading disagreements as attacks when, in fact, they aren’t attacks, but disagreements.

    In the case of my remark which ended with a pointed barb, I apologize if the person in question was offended, and I did not intend to make people ‘fearful to post’ on this (or any other) thread. But I do think we could use some thicker skins around here, too.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,992
    And we probably have readers and commenters along a range of neuro-typicality, which affects how comments are given and received in this medium.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,951
    And really, this is text. Not the same as talking with someone face-to-face. All the nuances are lost.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,700
    I do my best to be charitable around here (as do most others, I sincerely believe). There are strong opinions on the forum, no doubt, but people are often too sensitive too: reading disagreements as attacks when, in fact, they aren’t attacks, but disagreements.
    Yes, we ARE charitable... however, sometimes people define "charitable" as saying nothing that challenges their worldview... that it NOT charity. Charity speaks the truth in love... that means challenging the worldview and avoiding any personal attacks or comments. Yes?

    Yes, people are definitely too sensitive, and also add, much more defensive (they think it is a personal attack) than need to be... and

    this is a forum... you are not bound to read any of it. Get a tougher skin if you want to wade into the waters of something that might challenge you to think outside of your comfort zone.
  • Ariasita,

    You raise an excellent point about which secular events may/might/should be allowed to change musical choices for a given Sunday Mass.

    So as to treat this question seriously, we'll need to bifurcate the thread into two silos, one for the EF and one for the OF.

    In the OF, many (most?) people are under the impression that music can and should be adapted to the community and the secular event. So, sure, the Graduale Romanum exists, but once we've eliminated those melodies from consideration, are there any limits as to what may/might/must be honored beyond the liturgical calendar.

    In the EF, by contrast, the music is much more stable and fixed. Therefore, the way of recognizing these events is more limited (though, to be fair, not impossible).



    Can the rest of us address this question: What dictates how to respond to secular events, public holidays, etc?

    Thanked by 2Ariasita LauraKaz
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,951
    I had a rather easy time with this question. On patriotic holidays, the pastor said do God of our Fathers and America the Beautiful as entrance and recessional hymns. When left up to me, I tried to chose music that referred to the actual holiday, whether religious, secular, or semi-religious as some of them are.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    To be clear: restricting abortion isn’t merely “secular” as the deed in question as positively loathsome spiritual ramifications for all involved: mother, father, child, and “doctor”. There are, therefore, very grand spiritual consequences to this ostensibly secular shift.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • AriasitaAriasita
    Posts: 31
    Thank you for asking the correct question, Chris. To whom it may concern: calloused or thick skin, so defined as absence of semantical sensitivity, seems an unreasonable requisite for civil discourse in this or any forum. Are we logically therefore to ignore feelings that surface as devoid of any substantive meaning in order to wade?

    I hope your music making this morning was prayerful and edifying. Much for which to be grateful.
  • AriasitaAriasita
    Posts: 31
    I also humbly apologize if at any time I offended anyone. Such was never my intent as I respect all of you for the fine work of which you all partake for the Church. I beg your pardon.
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    It’s too bad that as a country and Church we have devolved to the point of lobbing straw-men like hand grenades at facts perceived as threats or biases. One can’t say that abortion is wrong without being hit with a barrage of “well-what-abouts;” one can’t say guns are appropriate (and actually constitutionally protected by name) for self-defense without having the horrific actions of some lunatics thrown in ones’ face, et c, et c. In my experience, those who scream the loudest for civil dialogue are the ones who actually least want it. Not addressing Ariasita specifically; just general observations. And having celebrated the birth of my 2nd grandchild a week ago, I am rejoicing that abortion is being brought up short.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 975
    Last thing I expected when first seeing this thread on a CATHOLIC forum was people trying to drag this down. On this issue, you're either on one side or your not. You can't put gray areas on the abortion argument.
  • Simon
    Posts: 153
    This is an abominable decision of the highest court in the land.

    How many more youthful female lives will be wasted by pregnancies brought to fruition caused by rape by strangers/uncles, by rape by fathers on underage daughters? Young women abandoning school due to pregnancies not by their consent? Lost in a future of single parenthood, a life based on welfare payments, their child raised in an environment of insufficient parental care of a single mother doing her best to make a living with no education skills, an absent father and more negative social constraints?

    A recipe for increasingly more social problems in the good ol' USA.

    I wish all pro-life activists all the best with solving these problems.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    Pro-life activists have been laboring hard to do just that, and their pregnancy help centers are being fire bombed and vandalized by people who would rather see the babies they are triging to rescue murdered. The “pro-choicers” don’t want you to choose life.

    These scenarios that you pose are indeed tragic, each in their own ways, but what is even more tragic is murdering the innocent babies. Murdering your own child will never make the pain of rape go away. It will just heap the guilt of murder and “what if” on top of the pain you already have. It saddles women with years of grief on top of tragedy.

    PS-there are many examples of women who have found HEALING precisely through raising the children whom they cannot help but love. Also, for those who simply cannot stomach the idea of raising their own children, adoption is a far better option than murder. There are also many survivors of attempted (botched) abortions who are glad to be alive. Better to be alive with a single mother than chopped apart and rotting in a landfill.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,951
    The rape and incest arguments are a bit thin and most abortions are for other reasons.

    In 2004, the Guttmacher Institute anonymously surveyed 1,209 post-abortive women from nine different abortion clinics across the country. Of the women surveyed, 957 provided a main reason for having an abortion. This table lists each reason and the percentage of respondents who chose it.
    Percentage Reason
    <0.5% Victim of rape
    3% Fetal health problems
    4% Physical health problems
    4% Would interfere with education or career
    7% Not mature enough to raise a child
    8% Don't want to be a single mother
    19% Done having children
    23% Can't afford a baby
    25% Not ready for a child
    6% Other


    One can look here and find other statistics.

    https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

    The majority of abortions are from women who are 25 - 29 years of age. (25.2 %)
    I have heard the same arguments in favor of abortion, dear Simon, from many others holding your positions. They are statistically, hogwash. Most abortions seem to be matters of convenience, not necessity.

    There has never been a perfect world. Ordinary married people from time immemorial have often struggled to raise children, but they did it. Many of them did it well under trying circumstances.
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    Thanks to Simon for demonstrating the straw-man lob so eloquently. Why are proponents of abortion so bent on portraying the women who opt for elective abortion as innocent or sweet young victims? Take a look at the protesters- those are the “women” you are supporting. Anyone with that kind of anger and energy will not likely fall victim to much.
  • Jani,

    I half expected Simon's comments to be in purple, but he intends them to be serious.

    Simon,

    Just so I'm not confusing you, purple text is the local form of sarcasm. I took your comment, at first, as sarcasm illustrating the point eloquently.

    Serviam,

    I think "secular" can mean different things to different people. If it means "not strictly ad infra", "not about who gets a red hat" or "whether a432 is preferable to a440:", or "something which impacts Catholics as well as other people", suddenly it's nothing to do with the moral teachings of the Church. On the other hand, since Justice Alito's decision didn't cite Church doctrine, and since the Supreme Court isn't an ecclesiastical tribunal, and since this decision impacts only Americans, could one make the argument that it's a purely non-religious matter?

    All,

    Juneteenth came up in an earlier thread, and now this. Does the "secular" holiday matter in trying to figure out whether/how to accommodate it?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,176
    CGZ writes:
    could one make the argument that it's a purely non-religious matter


    Indeed. I used to recognize that abortion was unjust when I was a non-believer, and the existence of "secular pro-life" groups of atheists and agnostics confirms that opposition to killing unborn children is not limited to religious believers.

    To take up a word that ServiamScores used: healing is an important point for the country too: for the past 50 years, the supporters of abortion didn't need to accept any compromise as long as the Roe/Doe/Casey decisions were in place. This has made a contentious issue into a winner-take-all battle of Manichean extremes.

    Now there will be a variety of measures in different places; there will be compromises. The evil of abortion will probably continue at a lower level, but making the laws finally reflect the wishes of the public can only help our country to be a place in which people who disagree can live in the same country without hating one another.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,037
    They also have backed themselves into a corner, away from any "compromise." I also don't think that it's really "over" in Europe, even if publicly taking a pro-life stance is a political death sentence. But, not going all-out like with Roe and Casey and the attempts at codifying them or putting them into state constitutions has kicked the can down the road, if not halted any attempt to go further on both sides.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • NihilNominisNihilNominis
    Posts: 990
    This is an abominable decision of the highest court in the land.

    How many more youthful female lives will be wasted by pregnancies brought to fruition caused by rape by strangers/uncles, by rape by fathers on underage daughters? Young women abandoning school due to pregnancies not by their consent? Lost in a future of single parenthood, a life based on welfare payments, their child raised in an environment of insufficient parental care of a single mother doing her best to make a living with no education skills, an absent father and more negative social constraints?

    A recipe for increasingly more social problems in the good ol' USA.

    I wish all pro-life activists all the best with solving these problems.


    But you can’t make a bad situation go away by doing something worse.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,775
    Don't expect things to go back to the 60's; for one thing mifepristone and misoprostol will make the back alley surgeries that killed the overseas sister of a friend much rarer. A New Yorker article We are not going back to the time before Roe- we are going somewhere worse tells of the three year ordeal of a woman charged with 2nd degree murder after a stillbirth. When every miscarriage is a potential criminal investigation, we might start worrying about the coming backlash and pray, if there's any time after the Te Deums, for the wisdom and humility of prosecutors.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,060
    I was in a chant rehearsal at the Colloquium when my phone buzzed. It was my wife, but I could neither take the call then, nor leave to take it without causing a disturbance. I looked at my watch, and thought, "Oh, that's why." Half a minute late, somebody held up their phone and made the announcement. I was truly blessed to get the news surrounded by our church.

    Many of us are filled with joy. A Christian response to that joy would be to be happy that there is joy. I also understand the pain of some about this, though I'm surprised to see it here. Yes, there are many things in this world that need fixing, most of which can only be fixed by Jesus. But they have nothing to do with this thing, which has passed back into the hands of the citizens, to be worked out as we work these things out. And may the best arguments win.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw LauraKaz
  • Simon
    Posts: 153
    Just one additional comment on all the above reactions to my intial reaction to the subject. I am reacting mostly to unwantingly impregnated young women.

    First comment (and this is statistically supported): It seems remarkable that almost twice as many men are pro-life as women who are pro-life. These beings are, of course, the most removed and also often very absent to the consequences.

    Simply, the woman should have the say in the negative consequences of a violent/or not violent sexual experience resulting in pregnancy. Read rape/loverboys/pure ignorance of a young uninformed young girl undergoing a sexual experience ('the first time never ends in a pregnancy').

    Let the victim be the decision maker. Her future is at stake. Very marginal help is available to very young women. Going through a full pregnancy and giving up the child of a rapist or absent loverboy for adoption leaves long lasting scars to the mother. Her future remains significantly limited.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • TCJ
    Posts: 975
    Simon,

    I suggest you review the ten commandments, then amend your views because they clearly aren't Catholic at this point.
  • Simon,

    I'm not sure how reliable "statistically supported" conclusions are, because both sides are claiming that the public at large supports the position promoted by the fundraising letter. Ask anyone who yawns through the January 6th meeting broadcasts, or anyone who is glued to his set: each side believes nearly everyone is on the side of the speaker.


    Just so I'm sure I grasped what you wrote, did you really say that pregnancy is a negative consequence of sexual intercourse? If I understood you correctly, that's the equivalent of saying that the engine starting is the negative consequence of turning the key in the ignition. Please, clarify.

    Even if the young (or not so young) woman is the victim of rape or incest, it seems ill advised (under the name of letting her be the decision maker) to make her an aggressor as well as a victim, the murderer of her unborn child as well as the unwilling plaything of a rapist. To the extent that the antiwar movement is led by women, it is so because they're opposed to seeing the deaths of their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons (and, in this age, their sisters and daughters). Urging them to kill the (unwanted) child is bound to cause cognitive dissonance.
  • It seems that the way some (a lot of) people carry on one would think that rape and incest constitute 98% of unwanted pregnancies. Actually, according to the statistics, it's only 2% - that means that 98% of extra-marital sex is the result of totally irresponsible sexual 'recreation'. If people don't want children they should not sleep together - if they do they have made their choice or chosen to take their chances. Too, a father has equal rights over any child he has sired. Women do not have a monopoly over the life of the child that results from intercourse. It is the man's seed, after all, and he has equal responsibility and say over its well being.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    I find it very telling that videos of women pledging abstinence are going viral. These are, mind you, liberal women who are now unwilling to take the risk of getting pregnant, now that they no longer have recourse to abortion as a form of contraception, which is clearly how a good many women were treating it. They are coming to sudden and stark realizations that when you stop aborting children, the reality is that there are many high-stakes risks and consequences to intercourse. So much for “safe, legal, and rare”. Turns out it was being treated as a quotidian procedure of little consequence, which is of course a fantastic lie straight from the pit of hell.
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 430
    I hope none of your wives, sisters or daughters ever experience an ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous abortion.

    Of course I know they will, because, like, nature. But I hope they don't, because you will happily sacrifice them.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    Pax, you know very well that what you’ve just peddled is a lie.

    There are long-standing exceptions in Catholic moral theology that permit saving the life of the mother in extreme circumstances. In those cases, you are not merely taking a life, but rather saving one to avoid losing two. Further still, ectopic pregnancies are not viable—by definition—and also pose an extreme risk to the mother. This is fully accounted for in moral law as being just such a case and does not fall under the umbrella of willful ending of another’s life (for the mere sake of it). Also, spontaneous abortion (a.k.a. miscarriage) is not at all the same thing as what we colloquially term ‘abortion’. Removing pre-deceased foetal remains, while a similar medical procedure, is not AT ALL the same thing, morally speaking. There is nothing in the striking down of RvW that prevents the proper removal of foetal remains or ectopic pregnancies.

    PS—I’ve buried two children who were ‘spontaneously aborted’. My wife did no wrong in either case.

    PPS—we buried our babies in sacred ground, we didn’t grind them up and throw them in a dumpster with the trash.
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    Well this went downhill fast. I would be willing to bet that if ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) are ever investigated as illegal activity, it won’t be the players on the Right doing it. Some of us are/were willing to sacrifice ourselves for our unborn. The story of Chiara Corbella Petrillo could teach people some things.
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    It seems remarkable that almost twice as many men are pro-life as women who are pro-life. These beings are, of course, the most removed and also often very absent to the consequences.
    And yet, there’s nothing quite as disgusting as men arguing for the right to be completely removed by convincing their baby-mamas to abort their offspring.

    ectopic pregnancy or spontaneous abortion
    I really, REALLY thought this ridiculous argument was being made to fear monger idiots into thinking banning or limiting abortions (which are not healthcare) would have anything to do with ACTUAL medical intervention. Anybody with the smallest amount of common sense knows that ectopic pregnancies are not treated with abortion. Miscarriages are not considered abortion, no matter the medical jargon you want to drag into it.

    Why do people think they get to rail on pro-life men just because they are male?

    I’m a woman.
    I’ve had a miscarriage.
    Would anyone care to guess how many people in the doctor’s office said, “Ms. Cooze, your body is in the process of having an abortion”?
    OR
    “When you come in again, if your body hasn’t naturally passed the ‘fetus,’ we’ll need to schedule an abortion to make sure you stay safe”?


    If you guessed that that’s 100% not the way they handle or talk about miscarriages or post-miscarriage appointments, you’re correct. Yay you!

    I applaud and encourage this decision on “Roe” and firmly believe that abortion is NEVER the appropriate response to ANY reproductive issue.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,037
    Treatment of ectopic pregnancy is not a procured abortion — Planned Parenthood says as much — and is already done in Catholic hospitals with an ethics committee. As Serviam alludes, the principle of double effect applies, though much more can be said on why this works in particular cases.
  • lacrimosa
    Posts: 43
    How many times have I heard from the pulpit prayers for legal protection of the unborn?

    Yet how unclear it has been that in order to have pro-life legislation we need pro-life legislators. How disappointing it has been to find that fellow Catholics vote for pro-choice candidates.

    Thank you President Trump and those who voted for him. I hope Catholics who voted for Clinton and Biden will see that pro-life votes can actually matter.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,176

    First comment (and this is statistically supported): It seems remarkable that almost twice as many men are pro-life as women who are pro-life


    This chart from the Pew Research Center shows a more subtle situation: women take the 100%-legal and 100%-illegal positions more often than men do; but in the mixed positions, men support pro-legalization positions slightly more than women do.


    https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/pf_05-06-22_abortion-views_0_10/
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,764
    How disappointing it has been to find that fellow Catholics vote for pro-choice candidates.
    It would appear, based on Pelosi’s most recent theatre in Rome, that even the Pope “votes pro choice” when it suits him. Even he is not above the moral law… but what’s a little sacrilege between friends, eh?
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 542
    US women are being jailed for having miscarriages

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544