Voting pro-choice always immoral?

[SoCalRC]

Have you met Catholics who claim the war is unjust but that is accepatble to them?

Yes, quite a few here. They believe the war is ‘justified’, and are unmoved by evidence of failure to comply with the CCC with regards to proper application of Just War theory. They have decided that the war is ‘just’ in their minds, regardless of the conditions of ‘just war’ with regards to Church teaching.

You seem to elevate prudential judgement to a universal teaching. Again, where has the Pope bound anyone not to participate in this war?

You seem to think that only infallible teachings bind you. Perhaps you missunderstand the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church?

 

[SoCalRC]

The church’s teachings on abortion are crystal clear The Pope said also specifically said that Catholics in good conscience can disagree about the war. Why this discussion is still going is beyond me.

Because you claim that you at least agree with the Magesterium on infallible pro life teachings. Yet, you vote for euthanasia, torture/murder, and even active abortionists. Instead of answering such documented realities in a coherent moral context, you screech about other’s “rants” and then launch into a campaign of false defamation.

On top of this, you continuously claim that your choices are the only permissible moral ones for a “true Catholic”.

Having elevated yourself to a position of moral authority above that of the Holy See, why are you suprised that at least some Roman Catholics bristle at what appears to be a rejection of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church?

 

[KathleenElsie]

Holly,

The question I would ask you is who will the Democrats place into positions of importance where life and death are defended.

I am (unfortunately) holding my nose and in many cases unhappy even angry with our current administration. Yet, the judicial choices that will have many more years to correct the wrongs that have been done and they have generally been pro-Constitution and pro life. I don’t think the USA can outlive the damage more liberal Justices can do to our rights and freedoms.

So if I have to “hold my nose” and vote for someone I don’t agree with, I pray that this someone will protect our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS and not protect any political party.

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t think the USA can outlive the damage more liberal Justices can do to our rights and freedoms.

Correct me if I am worng, but did not both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito join an opinion reaffirming Roe v. Wade’s central legal arguments? (Gonzales v. Carhart)

And have not both consistantly sided with an expansion of government power and a contraction of individual liberty? In fact, both seem to have been selected principally because of their ideological support of greatly expanded presidential powers.

Like Holly, I understand your motivation for holding your nose. But my attitude has become ‘evil begets evil’. If we have to hold our noses, we are likely embracing evil means, which would explain our ongoing failure to achieve good ends.

I think it is better to wholly resist evil and trust in God to then help us with the ‘odds’.

 

[rlg94086]

Correct me if I am worng, but did not both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito join an opinion reaffirming Roe v. Wade’s central legal arguments? (Gonzales v. Carhart)

That won’t be too difficult. I’ll let Justice Ginsburg do it for me in her dissenting opinion…

One wonders how long a line that saves no fetus from destruction will hold in face of the Court’s “moral concerns.” See supra, at 15; cf. ante, at16 (noting that “n this litigation” the Attorney General “does not dispute that the Act would impose an undue burden if it covered standard D&E”). The Court’s hostility to the right Roe and Casey secured is not concealed. Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctor.” Ante, at 14, 24, 25, 31, 33. A fetus is described as an “unborn child,” and as a “baby,” *ante, *at 3, 8; second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as “late-term,” *ante, *at 26; and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as “preferences”motivated by “mere convenience,” *ante, *at 3, 37. Instead of the heightened scrutiny we have previously applied, the Court determines that a “rational” ground is enough to uphold the Act, ante, at28, 37. ***And, most troubling, Casey’s principles, confirming the continuing vitality of “the essential holding of Roe,” are merely “assume[d]” for the moment, ante, at15, 31, rather than “retained” or “reaffirmed,” ***Casey, 505 U. S., at 846.
…
Though today’s opinion does not go so far as to discard *Roe *or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of “the rule of law” and the “principles of stare decisis.” Congress imposed a ban despite our clear prior holdings that the State cannot proscribe an abortion procedure when its use is necessary to protect a woman’s health. See supra, at 7, n. 4. Although Congress’ findings could not withstand the crucible of trial, the Court defers to the legislative override of our Constitution-based rulings. See supra, at 7–9. A decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power.

Clearly, Justice Ginsburg sees the ruling as an attack on *Roe v. Wade. *Only in the topsy-turvy world of trying to demonize pro-lifers as not being pro-life enough, would someone see Kennedy’s opinion (joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) as reaffirming Roe v. Wade.

 

[SoCalRC]

That won’t be too difficult. I’ll let Justice Ginsburg do it for me in her dissenting opinion…

Sorry, she accuses the majority of giving only lip service to the principles, while ultimately distorting them (ex. the medical exception from Casey).

My point was that the majority opinion expressly states that it reaffirms Roe v. Wade. That would seem to be obvious since the opinion upholds the ban on the basis that it will not stop any abortions. Just to be safe, the opinion even includes a blueprint for bypassing the ban.

Your point seems to be that Ginsburg is correct, that the judges are twisting and abusing the law for their own purpose. IE, that they are activist judges, not strict constitutionalists. This could be true. After all, the concurring opinion notes that Scalia and Thomas expressly do not agree with the constitutionality of Roe, but would have overturned the ban had the Commerce Claus of the Constitution been raised. That would appear to be more of a strict constitutionalist viewpoint.

But since the GOP and the president loudly proclaims to loathe activist judges, perhaps we should take Roberts and Alito at their word, not Ginsburg’s…

 

[rlg94086]

Sorry, she accuses the majority of giving only lip service to the principles, while ultimately distorting them (ex. the medical exception from Casey).

My point was that the majority opinion expressly states that it reaffirms Roe v. Wade. That would seem to be obvious since the opinion upholds the ban on the basis that it will not stop any abortions. Just to be safe, the opinion even includes a blueprint for bypassing the ban.

Your point seems to be that Ginsburg is correct, that the judges are twisting and abusing the law for their own purpose. IE, that they are activist judges, not strict constitutionalists. This could be true. After all, the concurring opinion notes that Scalia and Thomas expressly do not agree with the constitutionality of Roe, but would have overturned the ban had the Commerce Claus of the Constitution been raised. That would appear to be more of a strict constitutionalist viewpoint.

But since the GOP and the president loudly proclaims to loathe activist judges, perhaps we should take Roberts and Alito at their word, not Ginsburg’s…

Please quote them, because I don’t see where they reaffirmed Roe. An actual citation every once in a while would be good.

 

[fix]

Yes, quite a few here. They believe the war is ‘justified’, and are unmoved by evidence of failure to comply with the CCC with regards to proper application of Just War theory. They have decided that the war is ‘just’ in their minds, regardless of the conditions of ‘just war’ with regards to Church teaching.

You mean they do not accept your understanding of the matter? The magisterium has not declared the war unjust and immoral for Americans to participate.

You seem to think that only infallible teachings bind you. Perhaps you missunderstand the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church?

Wrong. Show me one post, anywhere, where I believe such a thing. I argue against that all the time in these fora. What I also argue against is a type of Fennyism where certain folks make themselves to be more Catholic than the Church.

I accept the authority of the Church and as such I do not tell others the Church imposes things that She does not impose.

If you have evidence the magisterium has declared the war unjust and Catholics are bound not to particpate please post it and I will be happy to change my understanding of the matter.

 

[estesbob]

Please quote them, because I don’t see where they reaffirmed Roe. An actual citation every once in a while would be good.

Only those who want to rationlaize their supporting pro-abortion political leaders claim that this decision affimred Roe. If this was true why did most of the Democrats(including suposedly pro-life Harry Reid) and all the pro-abortion organization go ballisitc when the decision was handed down?. I challeng anyone to find ANY pro-abortion oragnization or politican who says this decision affirmed Roe.

Heres what PP said:
What About Roe?

The ruling departs dramatically from one of the core holdings of Roe, that no abortion restriction may endanger a woman’s health. The ruling does not directly challenge the other core holding of Roe, that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to choose abortion. However, the ruling is a clear signal to those who seek to dismantle the 34-year-old decision that the court will be receptive to ever more intrusive efforts to limit access to abortion, thus further undermining that core holding of Roe. Shortly after the ruling, Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition of America, said, “**With today’s Supreme Court decision, it is just a matter of time before the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 will also be struck down by the court.”

Heres what Harry Reid Said

“I would only say that this isn’t the only decision that a lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there”

 

[fix]

“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” the draft says.
At the same time, the bishops say Catholics must not dismiss racism, the death penalty, unjust war, torture, hunger, health care problems or unjust immigration policy.

“A consistent ethic of life,” the document says, “neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues.”

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, one of the country’s most vocal bishops about Catholics’ need to speak in the public square, criticized the previous version of “Faithful Citizenship” for not being strong enough in underlining abortion’s pre-eminence.
Chaput said in an e-mail Tuesday the revised document “is better and clearer than any version in the recent past” but isn’t ideal.

Chaput wrote that “all bricks in a building are important, but the ones in the foundation support everything else. The latter aren’t just important; they’re indispensable.”

Bishops Weigh Political Statement

 

[rlg94086]

Heres what Harry Reid Said

“I would only say that this isn’t the only decision that a lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there”

Well, clearly that is because Reid is pro-life.

 

[SoCalRC]

Please quote them, because I don’t see where they reaffirmed Roe. An actual citation every once in a while would be good.

You can read the entire opinion here:

supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

However, the concurring opinion is short enough to quote in it’s entirety:

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins,concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980–983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts didnot address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring). [emphasis added]

Scalia argues that yes, the court is correctly adhering to Casey, but unlike the majority opinion he does not concur that prior jurisprudence is constitutional. He further notes that the ban itself might still be unconstitutional if the Commerce Clause had been raised.

So, we have Ginsburg accusing the majority of being activist judges and missapplying the law and we have Scalie arguing that the majority properly applied the law, though he disagrees with the majority on underlying constitutionality.

You’re siding with Ginsburg, why?

 

[SoCalRC]

Heres what Harry Reid Said

“I would only say that this isn’t the only decision that a lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there”

Funny how Reid’s VOTEs (for the ban) and his official press release supporting the Court’s upholding it don’t make it into your post.

You take a statement from the press conference, when he was asked about the quality of hte opinion. Reid has always held that a medical exception for the life of the mother is important to him and also expressed concern about the precedent of siding with politicians against medical doctors on the question of medical necessity.

But, by all means, keep throwing up the GOP talking points. If we keep making enough noise, maybe no one will notice that the ban, which only targetted about 2,000 abortions a year to begin with, hasn’t, and won’t stop a single one…

 

[rlg94086]

You can read the entire opinion here:

supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

However, the concurring opinion is short enough to quote in it’s entirety:

Scalia argues that yes, the court is correctly adhering to Casey, but unlike the majority opinion he does not concur that prior jurisprudence is constitutional. He further notes that the ban itself might still be unconstitutional if the Commerce Clause had been raised.

So, we have Ginsburg accusing the majority of being activist judges and missapplying the law and we have Scalie arguing that the majority properly applied the law, though he disagrees with the majority on underlying constitutionality.

You’re siding with Ginsburg, why?

Where have I said I side with Ginsburg? All I pointed out is that she (and just about everybody who is pro-choice) disagrees with your assessment of Alito and Roberts being pro-Roe v. Wade. Through your assessment, you seem to believe that the appointment of judges in the majority opinion on this case are not really forwarding the pro-life cause. Therefore, I would surmise that you are hoping for more justices like Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens and Bryer, who firmly believe that abortion is a Constitutional right with no restrictions allowed?

 

[estesbob]

Well, clearly that is because Reid is pro-life.

He has a 65% rating from NARL -II guess thats what passes for pro-life among those Catholics who are desperately looking for a reason to support a po-abortion canidate

 

[mozart-250]

My point was that the majority opinion expressly states that it reaffirms Roe v. Wade. That would seem to be obvious since the opinion upholds the ban on the basis that it will not stop any abortions. Just to be safe, the opinion even includes a blueprint for bypassing the ban.

Question and comment here…

Is there is a legal difference between:

• Acknowledging the legal precedence of Roe v. Wade
  and and refusing to overturn precedence.
• Reaffirming Roe v. Wade

I believe there is (although I could be wrong).

From my understanding, The only case that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade was Casey versus Pennnsylvania. The remaining cases acknowledged the precedence of Roe v. Wade and declined to overrule precedence. But in neither of these cases was the Supreme Court revisiing the constitutionality of abortion.

This is because the Supreme court does not consider all abortion cases as direct consitutional challenges to Roe v. Wade.
From what I have read, Roberts and Alito did not want to tip their hand as to how they would vote for any future case in which the court would decide to either uphold or overrule Roe v. Wade.

Am I correct in my understanding? As a non-lawyer I realize I may not be expressing myself all that eloquently here.

 

[estesbob]

Question and comment here…

Is there is a legal difference between:

• Acknowledging the legal precedence of Roe v. Wade
  and and refusing to overturn precedence.
• Reaffirming Roe v. Wade

I believe there is (although I could be wrong).

From my understanding, The only case that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade was Casey versus Pennnsylvania. The remaining cases acknowledged the precedence of Roe v. Wade and declined to overrule precedence. But in neither of these cases was the Supreme Court revisiing the constitutionality of abortion.

This is because the Supreme court does not consider all abortion cases as direct consitutional challenges to Roe v. Wade.
From what I have read, Roberts and Alito did not want to tip their hand as to how they would vote for any future case in which the court would decide to either uphold or overrule Roe v. Wade.

Am I correct in my understanding? As a non-lawyer I realize I may not be expressing myself all that eloquently here.

\

Cathart had more of an impact on Doe Vs Bolton than Roe V Wade. It was a very important victory becuase it was the first time the court ruled that the healt of the mother could be more narrowly defined.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t see how voting pro-choice could be immoral. Why? Because there are other issues besides pro-choice/pro-life issues in voting. For example, Democrats want the war in Iraq to end as soon as possible, would like to end the death penalty, would like to help Americans get universal health care, and more. I think that those things really do outweigh the negative fact that they are pretty much pro-choice for any situation. Besides, there are pro-life Democrats as well as pro-choice Democrats. I personally will be voting Democrat in the next election as I believe that it is the more moral choice than voting for Republicans.

Life issues trump quality of life issues.

Pro-choice - the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn baby who is given no choice and denied the Constituional right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[estesbob]

Life issues trump quality of life issues.

Pro-choice - the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn baby who is given no choice and denied the Constituional right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Agreed. All rights flow from the right to life. For the aborted there is no quality-of-life issue.

 

[SoCalRC]

\

Cathart had more of an impact on Doe Vs Bolton than Roe V Wade. It was a very important victory becuase it was the first time the court ruled that the healt of the mother could be more narrowly defined.

No, that was Casey. Prior to Casey the court left no paths to restriction on first trimester abortions at all.

Notice that the Court cited Casey in this opinion. The difference is that the court allowed politicians to make the determiniation of medical necessity instead of doctors.

Carhart makes no narrowing of defintition, at least not directly. It asserts that the ban does not run afoul of existing law because there are alternative legal procedures. That is, they did not narrow medical necessity, they claimed it did not apply.

A lot of doctors, and even folks from Focus on the Family, don’t believe this to be true. They assert that the alternatives are more dangerous to the mother in some circumstances. No one seems to believe that the risk change is enough to actually stop any abortions, but they still believe that the court is wrong in its assertion.