Catholic and Democrat in US

[Dovekin]

Oh yeah - the right to privacy. Where is that in the constitution again? Hmm, or maybe the right to an abortion. Maybe the right to an abortion is more “deeply rooted” in the Constitution than the first amendment? Strange, I don’t see that in the Constitution anywhere either!

I was only trying to explain why KH’s comments did not seem like religious prejudice. I hope you understand better now that it is a political criticism of KoC, not religious.

One of the biggest problems today imo is that Catholics do not understand how much pro-lifers are opposed to our Constitution as most people understand it. You found one place where it should be obvious. The underlying idea, that Catholics are unAmerican, is a serious issue that should be addressed better.

 

[JimG]

At present many Democrats seem intent on turning the Republic over to the mob, who wish to totally destroy it.

 

[27lw]

27lw:

Oh yeah - the right to privacy. Where is that in the constitution again? Hmm, or maybe the right to an abortion. Maybe the right to an abortion is more “deeply rooted” in the Constitution than the first amendment? Strange, I don’t see that in the Constitution anywhere either!

I was only trying to explain why KH’s comments did not seem like religious prejudice. I hope you understand better now that it is a political criticism of KoC, not religious.

One of the biggest problems today imo is that Catholics do not understand how much pro-lifers are opposed to our Constitution as most people understand it. You found one place where it should be obvious. The underlying idea, that Catholics are unAmerican, is a serious issue that should be addressed better.

That’s strange - were pro-lifers opposed to the Constitution for the first 197 years?
Or is it just in the last recent years that pro-lifers are seen as so divisive and downright un-American?
Also, you didn’t answer my questions – where are the right to privacy and abortion in the Constitution, please?

 

[farronwolf]

I am pretty certain the British felt the same way 250 years ago.

 

[JimG]

One of the biggest problems today imo is that Catholics do not understand how much pro-lifers are opposed to our Constitution as most people understand it

I don’t think that Catholics or pro-life people are opposed to the Constitution. The just do not believe that it contains a right to abortion. But the dissenting Justices in Roe v Wade agreed that no such right exists.

 

[gracepoole]

At present many Democrats seem intent on turning the Republic over to the mob, who wish to totally destroy it.

At present many Republicans seem intent on ignoring the voices of the citizens of the Republic, thereby helping to destroy it.

 

[JohnStrachan]

Well, the current POTUS…

1. Owned a fraudulent university
2. Made it his business practice to stiff creditors
3. Brags about his own history of sexual abuse
4. Made up stories about Muslims cheering the destruction of the WTC
5. Bragged he could shoot a man on 5th Avenue and know one would care
6. Mocks the disabled
7. Tells his supporters to beat up protesters
8. Curries favours for white supremacists
9. Insults foreign dignitaries
10. Refuses to make his tax files public
11. Allowed the people of Puerto Rico to languish after a hurricane
12. Picks fights with allies while befriending Putin and his buddy Kim Jong Un
13. Caging and separating children from their parents

This isn’t the example of leadership I would expect from any President. I do not think he has made America great again.

 

[JimG]

I think that citizens want not only justuce, but safety, not turning over residents to the mob, who wish only to destroy burn, and tear down.

 

[gracepoole]

I think ALL citizens want to be heard.

 

[JimG]

Agreed. And they should be heard. Which does not require violence, looting, burning, and threatening others.

 

[27lw]

I think ALL citizens want to be heard.

And there are many ways that they can be. Voting, writing, making a YouTube video, peaceful assembly and protest, campaigning, etc.

 

[gracepoole]

Agreed. And they should be heard. Which does not require violence, looting, burning, and threatening others.

You’re speaking of a minority as though it’s a majority. The overwhelming majority of protestors have been peaceful.

 

[27lw]

JimG:

Agreed. And they should be heard. Which does not require violence, looting, burning, and threatening others.

You’re speaking of a minority as though it’s a majority. The overwhelming majority of protestors have been peaceful.

Oh well, as long as the rioters were just a “minority” (not my word!), then, okay.

U.S. cities assess protest damage, await another day of unrest

America’s cities are boarding up windows, sweeping up glass and covering graffiti after the country’s most significant night of protests in 50 years.

www.latimes.com

Death toll grows as police, participants are killed during national protests

The deaths have at times been overshadowed by the shocking images of chaos engulfing cities across America, from heavy-handed riot police tactics to violence, vandalism and arson.

www.pennlive.com

 

[Dovekin]

That’s strange - were pro-lifers opposed to the Constitution for the first 197 years?
Or is it just in the last recent years that pro-lifers are seen as so divisive and downright un-American?
Also, you didn’t answer my questions – where are the right to privacy and abortion in the Constitution, please?

Slave owners were opposed to the Constitution for 87 years before their opposition became public. It would not be unreasonable to think prolifers were in a similar position for 197 years. At that point, the meaning was specified. People largely accept that the ruling was correct, despite obvious problems.

The basic principle is the dignity of the human person, a very Catholic notion. Privacy is inherent in that. It has broader roots than just the 6th amendment, but I do not understand how you can not see a right to privacy in:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

If you can figure out a way for women “to be secure in their persons” while outlawing abortion, it would be a huge advance. Instead, there is just denial of privacy as if it should not exist. It is a difficult problem.

 

[gracepoole]

I genuinely don’t know why you’re being so combative. Yes, the majority of protestors have been peaceful and they deserve to be heard. Sharing links that highlight the violent minority is a red herring.

 

[JimG]

I’m having a hard time trying to reconcile how a right to privacy equals a right to kill unborn babies.

 

[Dovekin]

I’m having a hard time trying to reconcile how a right to privacy equals a right to kill unborn babies.

You are not the only one who has that problem. Justice Blackmun, who wrote the Court’s opinion, was not sure how to do it. Below is a paragraph that offers 3 different places where the right to terminate a pregnancy might be found. (citations were deleted)

The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see…; or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment…

The only thing I am saying is that Kamala Harris and others see abortion rights as a part of personal liberty, privacy, or as a fundamental, inalienable right. Belonging to the KoC is a threat to that understanding not because it is a religious organization but because it has a political stance that opposes abortion rights (=personal liberty, privacy, or more fundamental rights)

You do not have to agree with KH, Blackmun or anybody else to understand this is a purely political position. It may be a totally irrational or incomprehensible position, but it is held by most people in this country.

 

[Ridgerunner]

more in line with Catholic social teaching. However you’d also have to deal with the statist-leaning advocacy i

Those things don’t really fit together, do they?

Catholic social teaching is anti-statist.

The bishops say abortion is the pre-eminent issue in this election. So…

 

[Ridgerunner]

Mostly untrue. But even if they were all true, it doesn’t justify supporting the killing of children.

 

[JohnStrachan]

Mostly untrue. But even if they were all true,

I can document reliable mainstream media sources for every single claim that I made. A judge only says not guilty if the if the evidence supports the conclusion.