5 ms·

Does anyone actually address how religion is a big factor at play here? It's skipped over every time but this is very much a religious war happening here. The

Does anyone actually address how religion is a big factor at play here? It's skipped over every time but this is very much a religious war happening here. The Catholics in the Supreme Court are overturning human rights because it goes against the recent dogmas their faith prescribed them to believe.

rovr138 4y ago
That introduces another variable that shouldn't matter. It also assumes that every catholic is anti-abortion. People and their beliefs are more complex than that.
- mbg721 4y ago
  For what it's worth, a major source of annoyance for traditionalist Catholics is that there are many people who identify themselves as Catholic but don't subscribe to the more controversial moral teachings of the Church. It's probably about 50/50, just like the rest of American society.
  - francisofascii 4y ago
    It is also a major annoyance for progressive Catholics, that traditionalists pick and choose which Church teachings they agree with. Immigration being a big example. Also working towards the "common good" is something conservative Catholics balk at. And they dismiss the Pope's encyclical on respect for the environment, and some even don't think the Pope is a good pope. Let's face it, both sides pick and choose. The Catechism is hard to live by fully.
    - mbg721 4y ago
      Pope Francis is also accused of being a shill for both sides.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
This isn't really true. Justice Roberts is "Catholic" but has voted against his religion every time on this issue, and would have spared Roe in his opinion if possible. Justice Sotomayor is also "Catholic" but has also voted against her religion every time on this issue. Justice Barrett is "Catholic" but is a member of "People of Praise," a group which many Catholics find suspicious on both sides, both for not being progressive but also being very charismatic and untraditional in its liturgical style. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh are all Catholic, but aren't really voting the way a full-on Catholic-everywhere would. Alito and Kavanaugh have said they aren't interested in revisiting the constitutionality of birth control and same sex marriage at this point, and Kavanaugh voted 6-3 with the rest of SCOTUS that gender orientation was protected by the Civil Rights Act which upset many more devout Catholics.
weberer 4y ago
That sounds like a conspiracy theory. Even atheists and pro-abortion people have been complaining that the ruling in Roe vs Wade was a huge stretch. At the end of the day, its not a constitutional issue. So either amend the constitution or leave the decision up to the states.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right.
  - spaced-out 4y ago
    No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach".
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      >> Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right. > No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Eh, not so much. It's probably an overstatement that she thought it was a "trash decision," but she definitely believed it was a tactical mistake and that its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-ro... > Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach". I think there's room to be more nuanced and have views about abortion and legal reasoning that are separate and distinct.
      - spaced-out 4y ago
        >its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion.
deepsquirrelnet 4y ago
Isn’t it interesting how it’s not even a popular Catholic point of view? [1] It seems that the path of money is from laity to church to dark money group(?) to political campaigns for judges or buying support for judge’s confirmations. However it happens, people should know their tithes are being used against them. [1] https://www.ncronline.org/news/68-us-catholics-say-roe-should-be-left-alone-poll-says https://www.ncronline.org/news/68-us-catholics-say-roe-shoul...
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  National Catholic Reporter was actually denounced and ordered by bishops almost 50 years ago to stop using "Catholic" in its name for its heterodox views and viewpoint. They refused because Catholic is not a trademark and the bishops could not enforce it, but one should not view them as a source of faithful Catholic news of any kind. It is not uncommon for priests to refer to them as the National Schismatic Reporter.
  - pseudalopex 4y ago
    Is that supposed to refute an Associated Press article about an Associated Press poll?
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Religion isn't enough to be the primary driver here and it's becoming less important with time. We've raised a 2-3 generation on popular dogma in which human life is the most sacred thing imaginable and now we have a society full of people do not generally posses the requisite mental faculties to have adult discussion about subjects that involve harm to people (or apparently fetuses). We're reaping what we sowed. You see this same "arrive at an obviously sub-optimal solution because we can't nut up and cause a little quantifiable harm to get to the better solution" problem across many subjects. Abortion is just one of the most obvious.
- WkndTriathlete 4y ago
  I get your point, but at the same time realize that "a little quantifiable harm to get to the better solution" is a _really_ steep, slippery slope. (I could make the argument that precise rationalization led to the Holocaust and World War 2.)
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  True that religion isn't the primary driver anymore. There is a huge indisputable overlap but to say it is religious dogma doesn't adequately identify the "problem". I believe current polarization is much more relevant that this has become a topic again. Every culture does inflate the value of human life and a society is well served by doing exactly that. Technically this is ideology or religion too, but so is everything you put on a pedestal instead. But that isn't at all a detriment for the argument for abortion even from a purely utilitarian point of view that acknowledges reality that abortions will happen if they are legal or illegal. I do think some societal and cultural problems do increase the number of abortions significantly and there are significantly less arguments against those that want to reduce abortions. > can't nut up and cause a little quantifiable harm to get to the better solution This is impotent reasoning. What is sub-optimal? From which perspective and for whom? Acknowledging reality does also mean that there aren't that many people that wish they were aborted. It is a gray decision but "nutting up" is no solution.
kodah 4y ago
A link to the decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf (Everything I'm writing about is under Held) Morality plays in some way. Basically, Roe tried to rewrite and ignore some history, according to the court, in order to establish an implicit privacy principle in the constitution. Where the morality comes in is that the court clearly fears things like hooking and drug use (which they mention explicitly in the ruling) and they tie this to Roe and Casey's arguments about privacy and autonomy while also demonstrating that Casey tried to eschew many of Roes arguments. They kept referring to this as "ordered liberty" which I took for morality. Therein lies the rub though, as Alito said. Without a right to privacy - or explicitly stated "liberty" the court then has to review what the people want. Half the country is on a spectrum within a spectrum about morality, and the other half is on a different spectrum within a spectrum. He also called out a third group, which wants abortion under certain circumstances. Thus, the court then reverts to history, which abortion has been historically highly illegal. So, some technical, some historical, some moral. Would an actual privacy amendment really provide a pathway for abortion is my broader question.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > They kept referring to this as "ordered liberty" which I took for morality. I don't think that's what that meant. I think the meaning was more along the lines of "liberty, but not everything-goes liberty." It's defined in the dictionary as "freedom limited by the need for order in society" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/ordered%20liberty https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/ordered%20liberty), and appears to be legal/political science jargon with some history behind it.
  - kodah 4y ago
    I understood that, but wouldn't the limits also involve moral interpretations?
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > I understood that, but wouldn't the limits also involve moral interpretations? Perhaps, but you seemed to be saying you took is as synonymous with morality, which doesn't seem like a correct reading. Morality doesn't seem to be very key to the concept, if it's even there at all. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/liberty/ https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/liberty/ > Ordered liberty is the desirable condition in which both public order and personal liberty are maintained. But how can liberty and authority, freedom and power, be combined and balanced so that one does not predominate over the other? This was the basic problem of constitutional government that concerned the founders of the United States, and it has continued to challenge Americans as democracy has evolved and expanded throughout the history of their country. Early on, James Madison noted the challenges of ordered liberty in a 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson: ‘‘It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government has too much or too little power; and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.’’

rovr138 4y ago

That introduces another variable that shouldn't matter. It also assumes that every catholic is anti-abortion. People and their beliefs are more complex than that.

mbg721 4y ago
For what it's worth, a major source of annoyance for traditionalist Catholics is that there are many people who identify themselves as Catholic but don't subscribe to the more controversial moral teachings of the Church. It's probably about 50/50, just like the rest of American society.
- francisofascii 4y ago
  It is also a major annoyance for progressive Catholics, that traditionalists pick and choose which Church teachings they agree with. Immigration being a big example. Also working towards the "common good" is something conservative Catholics balk at. And they dismiss the Pope's encyclical on respect for the environment, and some even don't think the Pope is a good pope. Let's face it, both sides pick and choose. The Catechism is hard to live by fully.
  - mbg721 4y ago
    Pope Francis is also accused of being a shill for both sides.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

This isn't really true. Justice Roberts is "Catholic" but has voted against his religion every time on this issue, and would have spared Roe in his opinion if possible. Justice Sotomayor is also "Catholic" but has also voted against her religion every time on this issue. Justice Barrett is "Catholic" but is a member of "People of Praise," a group which many Catholics find suspicious on both sides, both for not being progressive but also being very charismatic and untraditional in its liturgical style. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh are all Catholic, but aren't really voting the way a full-on Catholic-everywhere would. Alito and Kavanaugh have said they aren't interested in revisiting the constitutionality of birth control and same sex marriage at this point, and Kavanaugh voted 6-3 with the rest of SCOTUS that gender orientation was protected by the Civil Rights Act which upset many more devout Catholics.

weberer 4y ago

That sounds like a conspiracy theory. Even atheists and pro-abortion people have been complaining that the ruling in Roe vs Wade was a huge stretch. At the end of the day, its not a constitutional issue. So either amend the constitution or leave the decision up to the states.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right.
- spaced-out 4y ago
  No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach".
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >> Ruth Bader Ginsburg loved abortion, but thought Roe v Wade was a trash decision that actually risked being thrown out for how sloppy it was. She was right. > No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Eh, not so much. It's probably an overstatement that she thought it was a "trash decision," but she definitely believed it was a tactical mistake and that its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-ro... > Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach". I think there's room to be more nuanced and have views about abortion and legal reasoning that are separate and distinct.
    - spaced-out 4y ago
      >its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion.

deepsquirrelnet 4y ago

Isn’t it interesting how it’s not even a popular Catholic point of view? [1] It seems that the path of money is from laity to church to dark money group(?) to political campaigns for judges or buying support for judge’s confirmations. However it happens, people should know their tithes are being used against them. [1] https://www.ncronline.org/news/68-us-catholics-say-roe-should-be-left-alone-poll-says https://www.ncronline.org/news/68-us-catholics-say-roe-shoul...

gjsman-1000 4y ago
National Catholic Reporter was actually denounced and ordered by bishops almost 50 years ago to stop using "Catholic" in its name for its heterodox views and viewpoint. They refused because Catholic is not a trademark and the bishops could not enforce it, but one should not view them as a source of faithful Catholic news of any kind. It is not uncommon for priests to refer to them as the National Schismatic Reporter.
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  Is that supposed to refute an Associated Press article about an Associated Press poll?

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

Religion isn't enough to be the primary driver here and it's becoming less important with time. We've raised a 2-3 generation on popular dogma in which human life is the most sacred thing imaginable and now we have a society full of people do not generally posses the requisite mental faculties to have adult discussion about subjects that involve harm to people (or apparently fetuses). We're reaping what we sowed. You see this same "arrive at an obviously sub-optimal solution because we can't nut up and cause a little quantifiable harm to get to the better solution" problem across many subjects. Abortion is just one of the most obvious.

WkndTriathlete 4y ago
I get your point, but at the same time realize that "a little quantifiable harm to get to the better solution" is a _really_ steep, slippery slope. (I could make the argument that precise rationalization led to the Holocaust and World War 2.)
raxxorraxor 4y ago
True that religion isn't the primary driver anymore. There is a huge indisputable overlap but to say it is religious dogma doesn't adequately identify the "problem". I believe current polarization is much more relevant that this has become a topic again. Every culture does inflate the value of human life and a society is well served by doing exactly that. Technically this is ideology or religion too, but so is everything you put on a pedestal instead. But that isn't at all a detriment for the argument for abortion even from a purely utilitarian point of view that acknowledges reality that abortions will happen if they are legal or illegal. I do think some societal and cultural problems do increase the number of abortions significantly and there are significantly less arguments against those that want to reduce abortions. > can't nut up and cause a little quantifiable harm to get to the better solution This is impotent reasoning. What is sub-optimal? From which perspective and for whom? Acknowledging reality does also mean that there aren't that many people that wish they were aborted. It is a gray decision but "nutting up" is no solution.

kodah 4y ago

A link to the decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf (Everything I'm writing about is under Held) Morality plays in some way. Basically, Roe tried to rewrite and ignore some history, according to the court, in order to establish an implicit privacy principle in the constitution. Where the morality comes in is that the court clearly fears things like hooking and drug use (which they mention explicitly in the ruling) and they tie this to Roe and Casey's arguments about privacy and autonomy while also demonstrating that Casey tried to eschew many of Roes arguments. They kept referring to this as "ordered liberty" which I took for morality. Therein lies the rub though, as Alito said. Without a right to privacy - or explicitly stated "liberty" the court then has to review what the people want. Half the country is on a spectrum within a spectrum about morality, and the other half is on a different spectrum within a spectrum. He also called out a third group, which wants abortion under certain circumstances. Thus, the court then reverts to history, which abortion has been historically highly illegal. So, some technical, some historical, some moral. Would an actual privacy amendment really provide a pathway for abortion is my broader question.

tablespoon 4y ago
> They kept referring to this as "ordered liberty" which I took for morality. I don't think that's what that meant. I think the meaning was more along the lines of "liberty, but not everything-goes liberty." It's defined in the dictionary as "freedom limited by the need for order in society" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/ordered%20liberty https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/ordered%20liberty), and appears to be legal/political science jargon with some history behind it.
- kodah 4y ago
  I understood that, but wouldn't the limits also involve moral interpretations?
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > I understood that, but wouldn't the limits also involve moral interpretations? Perhaps, but you seemed to be saying you took is as synonymous with morality, which doesn't seem like a correct reading. Morality doesn't seem to be very key to the concept, if it's even there at all. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/liberty/ https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/liberty/ > Ordered liberty is the desirable condition in which both public order and personal liberty are maintained. But how can liberty and authority, freedom and power, be combined and balanced so that one does not predominate over the other? This was the basic problem of constitutional government that concerned the founders of the United States, and it has continued to challenge Americans as democracy has evolved and expanded throughout the history of their country. Early on, James Madison noted the challenges of ordered liberty in a 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson: ‘‘It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government has too much or too little power; and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.’’