D
dmar198
Guest
[Post deleted by author]]
- Status
Y
YADA
Guest
The democratic party platform supports and promotes abortion through every stage - conception to birth … Abortion is intrinsically evil
On may issues two people can hold differing views - like the social network …For example - how much should a person/family receive in SNAP benefits and what are the rules governing the program …there is room to discuss and for compromise … there are limits to the amount of aid funds and programs like that are administered … A concrete example might be Position A might be to increase the program funding 10% this next fiscal year … Position be might be to hold spending increases to 5%… my position could be between the two - or higher or lower than either - I do not have to agree - there are Pros and Cons and possible compromise …
The Republicans have tried to correct that injustice … in 1995 they passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban - a particularly heinous practice upon which you would think all caring people would agree … and Bill Clinton vetoed it … in 2002, 2003 and 2005 the republicans passed legislation to protect infants born alive and again the Partial Birth Abortion Ban …
What - even incrementally minor - legislation have democrats enacted that protects the unborn … what bills have they sponsored, voted for and passed to be placed before a president to sign? What legislation has a democratic President signed that saved a child from abortion? Since 1973 has any Democratic nominated Supreme Court Justice ruled favorably on abortion related legislation? … Just asking …
While I get your point about neither party being perfect - the Democratic Party has a zero record in support for the Unborn and a WRITTEN Platform Plank that is 100% pro abortion … no nuance, no longer do they even state that abortion should be rare … they celebrate it …
J
JTD_Eagle1
Guest
I agree, My family voted democrat for a long time, because the democrats were pro union, but my family has shifted sides and now vote almost all republican, will be voting in the republican primary this Tuesday. The GOP may not be perfect, but feel more comfortable with them.
G
graciew
Guest
Does Father Pavone think Sanders is okay? - as one poster here at CAF implied - No QUOTE]
No ,he doesn 't .
The poster added aso she wasn t being serious about it nor implied it.
priestsforlife.org/blog/index.php/fr-pavone-clinton-sanders-out-of-step-with-americans-on-abortion/
T
Tim_D
Guest
The Supreme Court is a Constitutionally defined institution whose purpose is to review legislation passed by congress and signed into law by either state governors or the president of the United States. As an appeals process to the exception of a law, the court’s purpose is to either uphold or strike down a law based on the Constitution, not the Catholic Church, the Bible, Tradition, the Catechism or anything else. It most certainly is NOT a litmus test for a candidate to the court to be expected to make a ruling based on the Constitution, case law and over 200 years of jurisprudence.
Y
YADA
Guest
I believe the poster was very serious when she said “Frank is okay with Sanders” … I understood the emoticon to be celebratory of Sanders having that stamp of approval - which of course he does not. The poster had earlier stated she is related to Father Pavone …No ,he doesn 't .
The poster added a
priestsforlife.org/blog/index.php/fr-pavone-clinton-sanders-out-of-step-with-americans-on-abortion/
Also I posted the link to Father Pavone’s facebook page and the link to Priests for Life already - soon after her post saying he was
T
Tim_D
Guest
Seeing that you couldn’t be more wrong in your stated conclusion, I can only say that you are as equally confused about the role and the purpose of the court system as defined by the Constitution in our country.Thus Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton which codified in law the killing of children from conception to the point of birth were morally correct decisions in your opinion and you support the killing of children … wow you are a pro abortion Catholic …
G
graciew
Guest
Well , we may not want to speak about other posters , just that I found then what F Pavone wrote and thought you might want to read it. Just that,Yada.
Y
YADA
Guest
I said I wanted justices who followed the constitution not ones that fit my ideas of morality - it is a fact that Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton codified the murder of the unborn - depriving them of their inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness …
You said I wanted to stack the court … no - I do want pro-life justices because those two decisions are a travesty of justice - just as Dred Scot and Plessy were …
You said the losers of Supreme Court cases should realize they were wrong - and get over it.
You said that what I find immoral is not necessarily true …
So if I mis judge you - you also mis judged me …
It is not my opinion that abortion is wrong - it is not only wrong, its intrinsically evil … it de-humanizes all of us. It is deadly for the child and harms families and our society …
A
anon67074017
Guest
I believe that Trump is against abortion, but he does not consider it a high-priority issue. He is trying to appeal to the people who are focused on the issues we hear about in the news a lot. He should take a stronger stand on abortion though.
D
dmar198
Guest
Webster defines litmus test as: “something that is used to make a judgment about whether someone or something is acceptable.” source If that definition is accurate, it seems to hinge on the word “acceptable.” In your view, if I understand you correctly (do I?), you think it is unacceptable to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who doesn’t care to apply the Constitution. If Webster’s definition is correct, that makes that position a litmus test – unless I’ve misunderstood it, which is always possible. Please feel free to clarify.
I agree.
How would you answer this argument:
Premise 1. The Court’s purpose is to make valid judicial decisions based on the Constitution.
Premise 2. Judicial decisions are only valid if they are based on the moral law. (Cf. CCC 1903)
Conclusion. Therefore, the Court’s purpose is to make valid judicial decisions based on the Constitution And the moral law.
Do you think that is a sound argument? If not, why not? Because I think we can prove, based on that, that the Court’s purpose includes following the morals of the Catholic Church. We would merely need to show that the Church’s morals are identical to the moral law, and I think that can be shown. What do you think?
T
Tim_D
Guest
Politically, a litmus test means that "I nominate this guy because his opinion is the same as what I think it should be." Supreme court candidates are supposed to be nominated and voted upon based on their record and the legal soundness of their decisions, not “I’ll vote to keep abortion legal.”
Nope. It is the duty of the Supreme Court of the United States to review the constitutionality of the cases that come before it. All decisions are (technically) supposed to be based on the Constitution, case law and the jurisprudence behind it. How exactly does one go about codifying moral law? Where is the appeal to higher authority? Even Justice Scalia was opposed to a federal law banning abortion because that authority is not based on the Constitution. He (rightly, I believe) felt that it should left up to the states to decide whether to permit it or not. And Scalia was a card-carrying Catholic, too.
I’m rather aghast that you would suggest that American Constitutional law should be based on the precepts of the Catholic Church. America government is secular. I doubt that many non-Catholics would be wild about having to succumb to Catholic morality, just as Catholics wouldn’t be wild about accepting protestant morality.
D
dmar198
Guest
To me, their decisions aren’t very sound if they don’t include “I’ll vote to make abortion illegal,” if that case comes up. To me, their Job is, in part, to enforce the protection of life.
But which premise was wrong? You sound like you are agreeing with the first premise. Is the second premise wrong? Because the Catechism says legal authority must be based on the moral law or it is invalid. It doesn’t say Except for the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Constitution says the Supreme Court’s decisions should be based only on the Constitution, and the Catechism says all authority must be based on the moral law, which one should we believe? Or are they compatible? (I think they sort of are compatible. To me, the Declaration of Independence is accepted as binding law by the Constitution in Article 6, and the Declaration indicates, at least to me, that the moral law is higher than any human law, including the Constitution itself.)
One way is through dogmatic formulas. The Church has power to dogmatically define moral issues. Its formal definitions on issues of morality can be issued as canons and added to the body of canon law. That would codify the moral law at least partially. But I also think the government can provisionally codify moral laws. Civil laws already say something equivalent to Thou shalt not steal, why not write something equivalent to the other provisions of the moral law?
I’m not sure. The extraordinary magisterium seems to be a higher authority since I think it can codify moral laws. Appeal could be made either to an ecumenical council or to the pope, I suppose.
I did not know that, do you have a source?
I don’t think it should be left up to the states. I think whoever has power to stop murder should stop it, and I think the Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to strike down any law that violates the right to life.
I probably have misunderstood something in Church teaching. Disregarding my own speculations, what I really want is this: civil law should be what the Church says civil law should be. If I’ve misunderstood what that is, I want the Church to be followed, not me. If my understanding is correct, the Church says that some moral laws should be enforced by governments, including “Thou shalt not murder” but Not “Repent and be baptized.” My understanding could definitely be wrong, and almost certainly is wrong in some parts at least.
I believe the moral law is the same for secular people as it is for Catholics.
I don’t think the difference in society would be that dramatic if the law was Catholic’d. The Church says freedom of conscience must be respected, for example, within some reasonable limits. That would probably alleviate most peoples’s qualms about Catholic morality, because Catholic morality allows non-Catholics to follow their own moral beliefs within reasonable limits. The Church does say, if my understanding is correct, that people should be forced not to murder. I think the Church’s moral standards are pretty clear and common sense. In any areas where they are not, clarification could be sought from the magisterium.
Y
YADA
Guest
Actually there are two types of laws upon which the Courts may rule - and you are only considering one … Statute Law
In the United States we have two types of laws … Statue Law [passed and signed] and Case Law derived from court decisions.
Both of which can be upheld or determined to be unconstitutional …
And has been illustrated by Dred Scot and other decisions - the US Supreme Court may revisit cases that would appear to be settled law - but were erroneous [or just plain immoral - wrong] decisions … we can pray one day for that to happen overturning Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton
T
Tim_D
Guest
I would imagine that in a discussion of American jurisprudence we would yield to the source of the foundation of our law and our government , the Constitution. How you imagine the catechism to enter into the discussion is beyond me. Why would a religious catechism fit into the legal framework of a non-religious state and government?
You are giving far more authority to the Church than what the Church claims. The Church exists for the salvation of souls, not the internal workings of state and government. History has shown that whenever the Church has been involved in politics she has always lost. The best thing to happen to the Church was the loss of the Papal States wherein it was no longer a temporal power.
L
Little_Sheep
Guest
, as hard as this is to write, I agree with The Donald on this one. Many of my ex students, from a very depressed area, had their first gynecological exam at PP. I have absolutely no qualms about PP prescribing oral ABC, the new IUD’s, or the long acting shots. In a addition, they also help women who have caught an STD.
Donald Trump is spot on about Planned Parenthood.
I myself do not think he is anti-choice in the way that some Catholics want him to be. I’m pro-choice myself and I know a fellow pro-choicer when I see one.
I personally see it as a moot point. Republicans and Democrats only stir the abortion pot to rile up certain bases - none of them are genuinely interested in reversing Roe v. Wade. MOO.
R
ringil
Guest
Do you believe that such a policy would be consistent with the teaching of the Church. What have the Ope and Bishops had to say about immigration?
D
dmar198
Guest
I think we should only yield to it in places where it is compatible with Church doctrine. Like St. Thomas More said, I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first.
Because I owe a higher allegiance to Church doctrine than I owe to the Constitution. Honestly, I think we are actually agreeing here on the fundamentals, I think I have just expressed myself poorly, and perhaps I continue to do so.
Because a non-religious state can and must still follow the moral law, and wherever it doesn’t, it’s laws are invalid and have no claim to obedience.
I agree with the latter sentence.
I think the Always there is a bit exaggerated. The Church has the right both to protest unjust laws and to try to change them, and it has sometimes won those fights.
The Catechism says that all lay Catholics should work to make political realities reflect the demands of Christian doctrine: CCC 899. See also CCC 2244.
Again, I think we are really in agreement here, and I suppose that I am probably simply expressing myself poorly. I think all laws must be Just Laws or they don’t count as laws at all. I don’t think any law can be a Just Law if it supports immorality. And I think supporting immorality is identical to violating Catholic morality. If those premises are accurate, I don’t see any way to escape this conclusion: any law that violates Catholic morality doesn’t count as a law at all. To me, that is the truth, and if the Court doesn’t recognize that it acts delusionally, because the essence of delusion is to ignore the truth. I hope that makes sense. If it doesn’t, ignore me, and stick with the Church’s teaching. I’m fallible, the Church isn’t.
M
Matilda_Bennett
Guest
Please remember that discussions of particular political candidates or parties are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.
- Status