Extremely disappointed with Catholic Answers

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Why not take the “pass” that you give to abortion providers and extend it to slave owners and murderers? Clearly, it is because you don’t really think abortion is akin to murder or slavery, despite what you posted upthread.

Harry, I’m not going to engage further with you.

It matters not whether you engage or disengage. What matters is that the truth gets stated, your engagement is irrelevant - unless you are actually concerned about the truth.

It is interesting that you seem to have made a habit of disengaging when you can no longer defend your position but re-engage when you believe you can.

Does the truth matter more or less than what you happen to think?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And here is one of the black leaders, Thad, within the Proud Boys “ideology” denouncing white supremacy.

The fruits of the group are much more significant than anything members of the group say.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

PaulinVA:

Abortion is horrible. I don’t support abortion for any reason at all. Even if it was made totally illegal, however, abortions would still be performed.

Murder IS also completely illegal but there are still murders “being performed.” What’s your point?

Two points about that: Murder, as it currently defined, is much more broadly condemned and support for criminal sanctions for murder is much broader than with abortion. Even murders believe murder should be illegal (even while they try to get away with it.) Not so with abortion.

Right. So the solution to the murder problem is that murderers ought to arrive at some kind of moral confusion wherein they sincerely believe murder is okay. Then we can legalize it because murderers no longer believe murder to be wrong? Its just a matter of convincing the progressive left. That shouldn’t be too difficult given what they have adopted just this past decade.

If gender dysphoria is a thing and that lack of certainty justifies the denial of marriage, the doing away with gender altogether and complete dysfunction regarding the purpose of sex, then…

I suppose moral dysphoria is next and morality can be safely disposed of and denied. Murder could easily be construed as biological reassignment surgery. The death of a human being could be thought of as a displacement of energy from the human form through its constituent components as fodder for other life forms. No moral problem there when it is depicted in such benign terms. After all, killing a baby is “maternal health care.” Murder is simply supplying health promoting nutrition to other life forms. How wonderful!

Have we reached apex insanity yet?

 

[JSAD]

Very true… . Both parties do take voters for granted to some extent.I don’t get me wrong . I agree with what you are saying. It would be nice to have another option.

However, a month or two before the election is too close to create genuine change. I’d rather have the status quo now, who will likely nominate conservative judges and keep taxes low. Perhaps after that is settled (And the country prevented from moving more to the left) 3rd party discussions can start again.

The media unfortunately is not favorable to anyone espousing conservative opinions. How will their voices be heard now?

Part of the reason why trump took off was because he was so eccentric and mainly used his own money to promote himself. Ultimately it is about creating a wave so that people will actually come out and vote for you on election day.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

And here is one of the black leaders, Thad, within the Proud Boys “ideology” denouncing white supremacy.

The fruits of the group are much more significant than anything members of the group say.

We agree on Antifa and BLM, then?

No. No. You say. Those ideologies are not to be judged by their fruits because they are merely two movements that have both been commandeered by extremists. Neither of those two groups are, themselves, extremists and anarchists. They are, to quote the president, …“good people on both [of those] sides.” Other nogoodnicks, definitely from the right, are sneaking in when nobody is looking and causing the mayhem.

Movements and ideologies (from the left) can in no way be the cause of violence and destruction. That stuff always comes from the right because the right has organizations and stuff, not ideologies like the good people on the left have.

 

[Ender]

Every abortion case challenges the precedents that establish the law.

I think precedents are challenged only if the issue is specifically raised. A case that involves abortion but where neither side challenges Roe does not offer an opportunity to address Roe’s finding. After all, if the issue is not argued, how can a justice decide on it?

How does Thomas write such a dissent, if the issue is not presented?

Thomas sat on a case where Roe was directly challenged and he took a position on the arguments made at that time. None of the other justices have heard challenges to Roe and it would be totally inappropriate for them to make a ruling on what would be no more than their personal opinions.

The fact is that no other Justice joins Thomas’ opinion that Roe and Casey should be overturned because no other Justice wants to overturn them.

Not at all. Thomas began his dissent saying:

Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence…

Again, since the other justices have not heard a case that actually challenged the foundations of Roe/Casey… it would be totally inappropriate for them to claim that it was “ill-founded” in a case that never addressed those foundations in the first place.

 

[TMC]

I think precedents are challenged only if the issue is specifically raised. A case that involves abortion but where neither side challenges Roe does not offer an opportunity to address Roe’s finding. After all, if the issue is not argued, how can a justice decide on it?

If you think that, you are incorrect. Even so, every abortion case raises the base issues. Again, that is why Thomas addresses Roe every time.

Thomas sat on a case where Roe was directly challenged and he took a position on the arguments made at that time. None of the other justices have heard challenges to Roe and it would be totally inappropriate for them to make a ruling on what would be no more than their personal opinions.

With respect, this is nonsensical. There is no legal principle or tradition that a Justice may only speak on a topic if it was raised on a case he decided earlier. If there were, it would make no sense, and would handcuff the Court.

Not at all. Thomas began his dissent saying:

Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence…

Again, since the other justices have not heard a case that actually challenged the foundations of Roe/Casey… it would be totally inappropriate for them to claim that it was “ill-founded” in a case that never addressed those foundations in the first place.

What is your basis for saying that a case like June Medical does not challenge the foundations of abortion jurisprudence. It does. What is your source or authority for saying that it does not?

 

[Odilon]

So age determines mental acuity? What does that say about our current President, who is only 3 years younger than Biden?

President Trump is not short mentally like Mr. Biden is. Good grief, just go look at some of Biden’s video’s. This is a clear case of elder abuse by his family. Notice how his wife steps in time and time again to answer for Old Joe.

 

[bob4]

I think part of the problem is caused by a misunderstanding of the word “choosing”. We are not really choosing evil, as we do not have free choice in this matter. What we are choosing is to do as little harm as possible. That’s the choice before us, and we are obliged to take it.

The “what do you mean by that?” idea occurs I think, when people use the expression “the lesser of two evils”. In the hearers mind the idea forms of giving support to one evil that is less egregious than another. This sets up a conflict for the catechism states in CCC-1789 and other related sections that we may do evil so that good may result from it.
Colin Donovan wrote an article about this here: Is There a Lesser of Two Evils?| National Catholic Register
It includes the same quote from St. John Paul that you made in your earlier post.
Good talking with you.

 

[Odilon]

Movements and ideologies (from the left) can in no way be the cause of violence and destruction. That stuff always comes from the right because the right has organizations and stuff, not ideologies like the good people on the left have.

How can you say such nonsense? Look at history and it is leftist ideology that has killed more humans on this earth than any other. In China under Mao some 45 million people were killed in 4 years. Good old “Uncle Joe” Stalin killed an estimated 20 to 60 million of his own people. It is ;leftist ANTIFA that is at work in all those Democrat run cities causing mayhem, so don’t even try and tell me that I am not seeing what I am seeing. Even though the main stream media is doing it’s best to cover it all up, it is really happening.

Here are the new reporting guidelines from the AP: “Use care in deciding which term best applies: A riot is a wild or violent disturbance of the peace involving a group of people. The term riot suggests uncontrolled chaos and pandemonium”.

 

[whatistrue]

Well, since I wasn’t the one who claimed that age and mental acuity were related, perhaps you should reply to the person who did.

 

[Odilon]

Know them by their fruits. Here is an interactive map of Proud Boys incidences. Some are innocent enough. Others, not so much. Just zoom the map and click on a few and see what their fruits are

The Proud Boys are a reaction to the leftist, America hating, anarchist ANTIFA people. I abhor violence of any kind by anyone, but at some point people will get fed up of what certain people are doing. Remember, ANTIFA was on the scene first, then came the Proud Boys.

 

[Ender]

Abortion supporting politicians have been in power and abortions didn’t go up.

There are a number of factors that determine the number of abortions. The overall result says very little about each contributing factor.

The Supreme Court has had conservative Justices for a long time, and yet, Roe wasn’t overturned.

I’m pretty sure you know there have to be at least five of them to reverse Roe. I find it ironic that the pro-abortion side shrieks that replacing RBG with ACB will lead to the end of Roe, while the anti-abortion people who want to support the pro-abortion politicians dismiss the possibility as fantasy. Whatever your motivation, your voting preferences are identical.

These laws have been passed at the state and local level and are commendable.

As are the laws passed at the federal level, as I’m sure you know. Why do you ignore them as if they didn’t exist?

 

[Ender]

Even so, every abortion case raises the base issues.

In June Medical Services it was argued that the Louisiana law imposed an undue burden and thus violated (among others) Casey. Neither side ever argued that Casey was wrongly decided. What you are saying is that a justice could decide to override Casey without ever hearing arguments for or against it. I’m not a lawyer but that sounds irrational.

There is no legal principle or tradition that a Justice may only speak on a topic if it was raised on a case he decided earlier.

Let’s be more precise than this. “Speaking on” a topic is not what would be happening. You are talking about making a ruling on a case not heard before the court.

What is your basis for saying that a case like June Medical does not challenge the foundations of abortion jurisprudence.

“Cases” don’t challenge anything, litigants do, and the litigants in June did not challenge Roe.

It would be nice to hear from a lawyer about this…

 

[TMC]

In June Medical Services it was argued that the Louisiana law imposed an undue burden and thus violated (among others) Casey. Neither side ever argued that Casey was wrongly decided. What you are saying is that a justice could decide to override Casey without ever hearing arguments for or against it. I’m not a lawyer but that sounds irrational.

I agree it would be unlikely for the Court to overturn Roe or Casey without seeking briefing directly on that point, and the Court did not take briefing on that point in June Medical (although it may have been raised in an amicus, I have not read all the briefing). It also did not grant cert on that direct issue. However, doing so is not necessary to decide the case by overturning Roe and Casey. I do agree that they would be much more likely to let it be known that they consider a case a vehicle for possibly overturning if that was something they thought would be possible; the fact that they don’t simply reflects that there are nowhere near enough votes to do so.

The fact is that everyone understands that neither Roe or Casey are close to be overturned, so the litigants focus on the issues that will matter. But if you read June Medical, the entire case is based on Casey. The majority argues that Casey mandates invalidating the law at issue. The minority argues that Casey controls, but that it goes the other way. The whole case is about Casey, and only Thomas argues Casey is wrongly decided. That is the status of abortion jurisprudence - everyone knows that the issue is how to apply Casey; Casey itself is simply not in play.

Although the cases and opinions are (in my opinion) the best guide to where the Justices are on the topic, that is not the only source. Each of the last three “conservatives” confirmed to the Court have signaled in their confirmation that they will not overturn Roe. Trump said as much about Barrett in the debate. Could they change their minds - sure, anything is possible. But it is pretty clear where they are now.

Both parties like to claim that RvW is teetering on one vote. They do it for fund raising purposes and to whip up their respective bases. But it is simply not true.

All that said, maybe I am wrong. There will soon be a six to three conservative majority on the court, and the court could grant cert on an abortion case and overturn Roe next year. If it happens, it would mean you are correct. But when it doesn’t happen, expect the politicians to drum up funds by claiming it is still just one vote away.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Have we reached apex insanity yet?

Well, if that’s what your post was attempting to do, then I guess you succeeded.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The fruits of the group are much more significant than anything members of the group say.

We agree on Antifa and BLM, then?

Yes, except that the fruits of BLM are no where near as bad percentage wise as the fruits of right-wing extremists. And although Antifa is slightly worse that BLM, it is still not nearly so bad in the count of murders, as I showed. You probably want to attribute every violent riot to BLM, but the fact is they are not. They are upset about the same sort of thing as BLM, but they are not associated with it.

This is all consistent with the Department of Homeland Security draft report that found white supremacy a bigger domestic terrorist threat than any other, including the threat from foreign terrorist groups.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Proud Boys are a reaction to the leftist, America hating, anarchist ANTIFA people. I abhor violence of any kind by anyone, but at some point people will get fed up of what certain people are doing. Remember, ANTIFA was on the scene first, then came the Proud Boys.

When group A shows up to confront group B, that in no way gives group A a moral edge over group B.

 

[Naga]

The video I mentioned in post 123. See at time 1:10:42

 

[Raxus]

Yes, except that the fruits of BLM are no where near as bad percentage wise as the fruits of right-wing extremists.

Malarky. BLM and Antifa have caused more damage than the Proud Boys ever have or ever will. BLM and Antifa are fascist, witless rioters who excrete in their own nest like animals.