Roe v. Wade Overturned!
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,746
    the vast majority involved drugs

    Go figure.

    It would be nice if they start arresting the dealers too (and I’m deadly serious).
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,167
    I want to be careful about the latest bad-Catholic-politician story, as I have seen people say the Pope did not distribute Holy Communion at that Mass. That creates a little uncertainty about who knew what, etc.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    How disappointing it has been to find that fellow Catholics vote for pro-choice candidates.

    Abortion is not the only issue that matters in American politics, especially since it has been out of the hands of the legislative branch since Roe v. Wade. Let's stop pretending that Catholics who refuse to support the political apparatus of the Republican Party are somehow less orthodox.

    No, I am not a supporter of the Democratic Party.
  • lacrimosa
    Posts: 43
    Abortion is not the only issue that matters in American politics, especially since it has been out of the hands of the legislative branch since Roe v. Wade. Let's stop pretending that Catholics who refuse to support the political apparatus of the Republican Party are somehow less orthodox.


    They are turning a blind eye to a grave injustice. Roe v Wade is going back to the states because of Republicans (not that I think they are anything to brag about). There is almost zero support from Democrats for abortion restriction. I do see Catholics who support Democrats as less orthodox, or at best very ignorant.
    Thanked by 2MatthewRoth tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,994
    Abortion is not the only issue that matters in American politics, especially since it has been out of the hands of the legislative branch since Roe v. Wade.


    But the church has made it clear that being a single-issue voter on abortion in otherwise normal circumstances (excluding the panicked canard of the possibility of an anti-abortion neo-Nazi candidate) is perfectly fine, if not reasonable and expected. Plus, even under the old standard, states could restrict abortion in the third trimester, as they tried in Nebraska (losing in Stenberg v. Carhart) and which the federal government did in 2003 with the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (upheld in 2007) and after 2010, the GOP at the state level passed laws that pushed the standard further and further back. Indeed, the MS ban was only for fifteen weeks, whereas the TX ban that was already struck down when Roe controlled was a heartbeat bill and therefor for six weeks.

    Local legislators also have a pernicious influence; Michelle Wu, mayor of Boston, has supported including abortion as a part of paid family leave.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw LauraKaz
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    If someone forced drugs into Gamba and caused his death, I would see them jailed.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Schoenbergian,
    Let's stop pretending that Catholics who refuse to support the political apparatus of the Republican Party are somehow less orthodox.


    It isn't refusal to support the Republican party apparatus which makes person unorthodox. If it were, I would be counted as extremely unorthodox: I've never supported the Republican apparatus. If, occasionally, the Republican party gets something right (or more right than the other party) this doesn't make blind support of the Republican party a moral obligation.

    Abortion is also not the only issue in American politics. Just this week we've had gun ownership/control put before the people again, and government overreach, and the so-called "hook up culture", and spending as if we're in 1920's Italy.... but abortion is, in the words of our solidly equivocal conference of bishops, the preeminent issue.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    If, occasionally, the Republican party gets something right (or more right than the other party) this doesn't make blind support of the Republican party a moral obligation.
    Chris, I agree with you, but the partisan take on this issue is undoubtedly prevalent here.
    Roe v Wade is going back to the states because of Republicans (not that I think they are anything to brag about).
    Roe v. Wade is going back to the states because three centrist-to-left justices happened to retire or die during a Republican presidency. Ascribing credit to any political figure for that is like blaming +Francis for the war in Ukraine because he happened to be around for it.
  • lacrimosa
    Posts: 43
    Roe v. Wade is going back to the states because three centrist-to-left justices happened to retire or die during a Republican presidency. Ascribing credit to any political figure for that is like blaming +Francis for the war in Ukraine because he happened to be around for it.


    Yes and the more times we have pro-life (Republican) presidents the greater the chance of this happening. Think of how many more constitutionalist justices we might have if Bill Clinton and Barak Obama had not been elected. I am grateful that enough Catholics voted for Trump and didn't rationalize a Clinton vote. And Trump picked good ones, didn't he? Not turncoats like some (not all) of those appointed by Republicans. But there is absolutely no chance of that happening with a Democrat. And let's not forget the Republican Senate majority at that time. The more we vote for Republicans the better for the pro-life cause, until Democrats find some compassion for the unborn. (Also, doesn't it make you wonder if someone thinks that killing inconvenient unborn babies is a good thing, that perhaps their thinking regarding other issues might not be that sound?)
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    Less to sound judgement than shameless pandering for personal gain- both parties - some more ruthless than others.
  • Lacrimosa,

    I think your tone is what concerns Schoenbergian. Mr Trump picked some justices who, so far, haven't gone "bad", but it's not a foregone conclusion that they won't migrate as they age on the bench. Additionally, there's precedent for justices making decisions on topics in unusual ways. Eisenhower was once asked if he made any mistakes as president (so I understand) and he said that he had made two: they were both sitting on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Taney was placed on the Court to ensure the death of the Bank of the United States, but he is usually remembered for his Dred Scott decision which most people think was badly decided. If all three justices Mr. Trump appointed live full and health and long lives, the 30 year terms which recent rants have (erroneously) said are only a modern phenomenon will disappear from the "record books".

    We're Catholic first, and American second.
  • Simon
    Posts: 153
    Our discussion is in vain.

    The highest court of the land's decision will eventually result in more abortions in out of state clinics from adjoining states with a pro-life stance, and mail order abortion pills.

    And an increase in illegal abortions in states (maybe half of the US states) that elect to make this illegal.

    The die is cast.

    With a net result of more socially deprived women seeking dark avenues to release them of an unwanted fetus. Result: more young females dying or being maimed for life in these dark circumstances.

    Deal with it.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    State’s rights first. Deal with it.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Simon,

    I'm puzzled by your take on this situation.

    First, Catholics aren't consequentialists. You don't choose to sing hideous music because some squeaky wheel will complain to the Pastor otherwise. You don't choose to use altar girls because some angry feminist believes in "equality" and sits on your parish council. You don't choose to vote for Donald Trump because you own stock in orange hair dye companies.

    I'm always amused by the "poor people need abortions" and "minorities need abortions". Part of what makes these persons perpetual dependent minorities is that their share of the population never increases because an enormous number of pregnancies end in abortion instead of live births, promoted by those who say that minorities need abortion, and also greater representation. At the same time.

    I'm not so pessimistic as you are. I think that it's possible for all 50 states to end the state-sponsored practice of abortion. I look forward to that day.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw LauraKaz
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 542
    If someone forced drugs into Gamba and caused his death, I would see them jailed


    Much obliged.

    I do hope no one in your life ever falls prey to addiction. The absolute catastrophe of our mental health and addiction treatment systems is a tragic disgrace, as is our society which produces so many addicts that someone dies of an overdose every five minutes. For those poor mothers, my first reaction is grief and compassion, rather than an immediate judgment that they have willfully committed murder in the first degree.
  • Jani
    Posts: 441
    See that’s the problem with forums- unless you open your life up like a book, people presume there have been no hardships, and then they say things like “I hope you never ....“. It is possible to have a crap life, to have bad things happen that you can’t control, to be overcome by things you can no longer control, and still do.the.right.thing. So, I hope that whatever bad things have happened to you or those you love don’t become permanent enablers to victim hood.
  • PaxMelodious
    Posts: 428
    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.


    Such exceptions are sophistry, if you believe that all life is sacred. And they certainly don't cover all cases where a pregnancy is non-viable.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Such exceptions are sophistry, if you believe that all life is sacred.
    Have you never heard of the principle of self-defense, to say nothing of losing one life instead of two? How would allowing the mother to die as well have anything to do with the sanctity of life?
    I'm puzzled by your take on this situation.

    First, Catholics aren't consequentialists. You don't choose to sing hideous music because some squeaky wheel will complain to the Pastor otherwise. You don't choose to use altar girls because some angry feminist believes in "equality" and sits on your parish council. You don't choose to vote for Donald Trump because you own stock in orange hair dye companies.
    The problem is that people will continue to have abortions even if we consider it morally deplorable. If what we are concerned about is saving lives, rather than virtue-signalling, then the consequences of these laws (even if they arise from thought patterns with which we disagree) must be taken into account. An abortion is an abortion, and moralizing about what Catholics should and shouldn't do will do nothing to change that unless an actual sea change in public morality takes place.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,746
    It is possible to have a crap life, to have bad things happen that you can’t control, to be overcome by things you can no longer control, and still do.the.right.thing.

    Amen.

    Manyyyyyyy a saint is living proof of this! (To say nothing of the martyrs who would rather die than offend God, and who now reap untold eternal reward as a result!)

    Also, let us never forget that our Lord never asks more of us than He is prepared to bolster with His own grace, if only we ask Him. Our own evil, via free will, may force His hand from time to time (so to speak) but that doesn’t mean He is rendered impotent… quite the contrary: He has made quite the habit of Redeeming everyone (and every situation) whenever He’s asked. (And innumerable more even when He’s not asked!)
    Thanked by 3Jani tomjaw francis
  • Schoenbergian,

    People will continue to sin, because (judging from recorded history) they can. Your argument misses this fundamental reality not because you don't mention that women will continue to get abortions, but because you misunderstand the multiple purposes of law. Laws tell us what is good, and promotable, and bad and punishable. Laws also influence behavior and opinions. Witness that in the last 50 years what had a moral taboo against it mostly has a moral taboo against NOT doing it now. Witness the response of a group of people who say "If abortion won't be available, we'll go on a sex strike". More abstinence is, thus, promoted.

    Now, since this is a music/liturgy forum, consider the immediate application to the state of the liturgy. What happened in the wake of guitar Masses, and vernacular everywhere, everything, and the inclusive language crusade of a few years ago.
    Behaviors which had been previously proscribed (the guitar Mass, the mandatory use of the vernacular for all of Mass, the butchering of poetry, sense and common sense through inclusive language) had free reign.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,994
    An abortion is an abortion, and moralizing about what Catholics should and shouldn't do will do nothing to change that unless an actual sea change in public morality takes place.


    Culture is downstream of law, not the other way around. Statutes should be well-crafted, so taking Catholic teaching into account is important (especially since Catholic hospitals actually are significant stakeholders even in deep red states that we don't consider "Catholic" like NY, MA, or NJ historically) but at the end of the day, if people choose to break the law for whatever reason (and I'm talking about procuring an abortion, not the wild, irrelevant cases that people defending elective abortion like to talk about since the strategy was successful in Ireland)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,167
    Theologian Kelly Bowring discusses the treatment options for ectopic pregnancy and provides ethical analysis of them in this paper:
    https://uffl.org/vol12/bowring12.pdf

    Some of the procedures that have been used or proposed for treating these cases are not morally acceptable, but some are morally licit, since -- even when the death of the child is foreseeable -- the procedure contains no direct act against the child; the procedure consists of removing a diseased fallopian tube; and implies no intention to harm the child.