mtierney said:

Let me tell you the key word in this guest editorial is in this quote:

“Americans will disagree about whether to mourn or celebrate the destruction of this constitutional right, but there should be no illusion about its price.”

I see no error, but I can guess what you may be thinking of.

Further clarity for my  question — still. unanswered…

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/the-greatest-victory-in-the-history-of-the-conservative-movement/

drummerboy said:

I see no error, but I can guess what you may be thinking of.

Why so hesitant in sharing your “guess,” DB?

mtierney said:

Further clarity for my  question — still. unanswered…

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/the-greatest-victory-in-the-history-of-the-conservative-movement/

I answered it. There is no error.

here's some more food for thought. they really don't even care what they say anymore.

I’m crying now, real tears. I hadn’t bothered to check what was said - I wish I could do more than just send my support in opposing this return to bigotry and classism.

drummerboy said:

I answered it. There is no error.

No one here sees the error, or no one here will recognize the basis for the Court’s decision. Or even bring it up for discussion.

“Americans will disagree about whether to mourn or celebrate the destruction of this constitutional right, but there should be no illusion about its price.”

The Constitution does not guarantee abortion “ rights.”

mtierney said:

drummerboy said:

I answered it. There is no error.

No one here sees the error, or no one here will recognize the basis for the Court’s decision. Or even bring it up for discussion.

“Americans will disagree about whether to mourn or celebrate the destruction of this constitutional right, but there should be no illusion about its price.”

The Constitution does not guarantee abortion “ rights.”

yeah, that's what I thought.

A "constitutional right"  is one that is granted by an interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court.  It does not mean that it has to be explicitly listed in the constitution.

So, as I said, no error.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constitutional_rights

constitutional rights

Constitutional rights are the protections and liberties guaranteed to the people by the U.S. Constitution. Many of these rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to free speech and the right to a speedy and public trial. Even though these rights are expressly stated, their proper interpretation and scope has been the subject of many Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, not all rights protected by the U.S. Constitution are explicitly stated. Some are implied or unenumerated, like the right to privacy.

I get a kick out of how upset mtierney gets when no one answers her question (to her satisfaction).

mtierney said:

drummerboy said:

I answered it. There is no error.

No one here sees the error, or no one here will recognize the basis for the Court’s decision. Or even bring it up for discussion.

“Americans will disagree about whether to mourn or celebrate the destruction of this constitutional right, but there should be no illusion about its price.”

The Constitution does not guarantee abortion “ rights.”

So you were trolling. 

nohero said:

mtierney said:

drummerboy said:

I answered it. There is no error.

No one here sees the error, or no one here will recognize the basis for the Court’s decision. Or even bring it up for discussion.

“Americans will disagree about whether to mourn or celebrate the destruction of this constitutional right, but there should be no illusion about its price.”

The Constitution does not guarantee abortion “ rights.”

So you were trolling. 

Always.

Here is a response from a Catholic perspective…

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251640/why-did-chief-justice-roberts-disagree-with-overturning-roe-v-wade

Imagine how upset the notoriously anti Catholic Founding Fathers would be to see the SCOTUS dominated by papists.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice probably summed up the feelings of most of the Founders when he wrote the following in response to the Quebec Act: "Nor can we suppress our astonishment that a British Parliament should ever consent to establish in that country [Quebec] a religion [Catholicism] that has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder, and rebellion through every part of the world.”

Relating to yesterday’s SCOTUS decision…..

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-profound-christian-conflict-on?r=q7tzw&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

mtierney said:

Relating to yesterday’s SCOTUS decision…..

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/the-profound-christian-conflict-on?r=q7tzw&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

From the same guy who wrote that

mtierney said:

 I am pro-life, against the death penalty

I know that, in the past, you generally limited yourself to voting for candidates who supported forced birth. With Roe now settled, should we assume that, moving forward, you will only be voting for candidates who oppose the death penalty?

mtierney said:

Here is a response from a Catholic perspective…

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251640/why-did-chief-justice-roberts-disagree-with-overturning-roe-v-wade

Nothing in the reporting relates to a "Catholic" perspective, or that of any other religious belief or point of view.  It simply relates the details of what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his concurrence.

A Catholic perspective -

But what I believe does not need to be the fundamental law of the United States. And, from that point we embark on my argument. The Catholic Case (for Roe) against Dobbs is not about what the Church teaches about abortion at all. It is about what the Church teaches us about conscience and religious freedom. The teachings of the Church that incur excommunication latae sententiae do not apply to whole communities or nations. They apply to persons. I am a person. The United States is a political community filled with non-Catholics.
...

It is a lie to say that the Roe regime was “pro-abortion.” It was not. Roe identified a right that could be exercised or not according to one’s own conscience. We also should add that Roe held a woman’s right in balance with the state interest in the life of an unborn baby, which was why Roe made abortion more difficult to obtain after the first trimester. Holding all of these priorities in balance, Roe settled the challenging question of abortion about as well as could be hoped in a free republic home to many faiths and perspectives.
...

No one needed to have an abortion under Roe. Abortion was an option. Government was not in the business of forcing abortions. Yet, under Dobbs state governments will be in the business of denying abortions even to citizens who have no conscientious objection to abortion and to citizens who may regard abortion, in some cases, to be a moral duty. Under Dobbs, conscience will be restrained—even coerced.

As a practicing Catholic, I find that restraint and coercion of conscience objectionable. But there is more. Also as a Catholic, I know the constitutional system has been a source of peace and justice. The Dobbs decision has unsettled that constitutional system. Peace and justice in the United States are in jeopardy because of it. And for that reason, too, I hold that a Catholic should object to the Dobbs ruling. The Catholic case (for Roe) against Dobbs has nothing at all to do with abortion. Of course Catholics oppose abortion. But Catholics also are meant to support free consciences and civil peace. Because I do, I cannot support Dobbs.

Author: Steven P. Millies, Professor of Public Theology and Director of The Bernardin Center at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago

Roe v. Wade made for a convenient rallying cry for the likes of Mitch McConnell who has long railed against the SCOTUS "legislating" from bench.  One can imagine his more fundamental grievance being with the federal government removing states "rights" to implement discriminatory regimes against Blacks or the LGBTQ community.

Another Catholic perspective - 

Another Catholic perspective, from Sister Christine Schenk.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/column/wise-abortion-public-policy-should-deal-realities-well-moralities

Excerpt, but read the whole thing: "While moral considerations are important in making individual decisions, a rigid moral approach has significant limitations. When considering legislation there are additional facts to consider. Public policy must deal with realities as well as moralities."

Here we have yet another interpretation of the SCOTUS abortion decision—from a legal and moral  perspective. Dems will get a “jolt” at the recap of their lost opportunities to get control of the court.

https://link.nationalreview.com

mtierney said:

Here we have yet another interpretation of the SCOTUS abortion decision—from a legal and moral  perspective. Dems will get a “jolt” at the recap of their lost opportunities to get control of the court.

https://link.nationalreview.com

That article is a disingenuous piece of garbage.  He doesn't actually believe the "it's no big deal" nonsense he's pushing.

[Edited to add] And, wrong thread, since it doesn't relate to religion.

I think a very important component in the abortion issue is the often “missing link”: Men. It’s been said that while a woman can only have one child a year, a man can impregnate  100 women. Why are pro-abortion activists and demonstrators  predominantly composed of women? They carry the burden/child, but males are the other half of the parenting

Since  “hooking up” and online anonymous “dating” , is acceptable by generations of women since Roe passed, has that promiscuous behavior, without responsibility for unintended consequences, given men a free pass? I would like women to be as active promoting the issue of male responsibility in their protests.

Yes, I am old-fashioned, perhaps, but not wrong about mutual respect being a vital required ingredient for relationships.

nohero said:

That article is a disingenuous piece of garbage.  He doesn't actually believe the "it's no big deal" nonsense he's pushing.

You did see that it was from the National Review? 

Isn't "disingenuous piece of garbage" axiomatic?

mtierney said:
Since  “hooking up” and online anonymous “dating” , is acceptable by generations of women since Roe passed, has that promiscuous behavior, without responsibility for unintended consequences

And there she goes with the slut shaming.

If you want to stop "unintended consequences" you should be out campaigning for free, easily accessible birth control.

mtierney said:

Yes, I am old-fashioned

Only in the sense of "old-fashioned" that means "a bigoted misogynist".

mtierney said:

I think a very important component in the abortion issue is the often “missing link”: Men. It’s been said that while a woman can only have one child a year, a man can impregnate  100 women. Why are pro-abortion activists and demonstrators  predominantly composed of women? They carry the burden/child, but males are the other half of the parenting

Since  “hooking up” and online anonymous “dating” , is acceptable by generations of women since Roe passed, has that promiscuous behavior, without responsibility for unintended consequences, given men a free pass? I would like women to be as active promoting the issue of male responsibility in their protests.

Yes, I am old-fashioned, perhaps, but not wrong about mutual respect being a vital required ingredient for relationships.

You aren't old-fashioned.  You are clueless.

For quite some time, many women (most ?) have desired the same sort of sexual freedom men have enjoyed since the beginning of time.  I believe that this coincides with industrialization and a sharp increase in the percentage of women who work outside the home.  This predates Roe v. Wade and the pill.

As for holding men accountable - well, that's just impossible to enforce.

tjohn said:

You aren't old-fashioned.  You are clueless.

You are so damn generous. She doesn't deserve you.