Evangelicals, Abortion and the Repubilcan Party

[jAZ]

I thought this was interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion

Fundamentalist (Evangelical) movements
Fundamentalist churches that include the Evangelical, Non-denominational, Southern Baptist and Pentecostal movements, do not have a single definition or doctrine on abortion. While these movements hold in common that abortion (when there is no threat to the life of the mother) is a form of infanticide, there is no consensus within these camps as to whether exceptions should be allowed when the woman's life is in mortal danger, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Some argue that the lives of both woman and child should be given equal consideration, in effect condemning all abortion including those performed to save the life of the woman. Others argue for exceptions which favor the life of the woman, perhaps including pregnancies resulting from cases of rape or incest.[33][34]

Randall Herbert Balmer, Ph.D., argues in his book, Thy Kingdom Come, that despite the popular belief that anti-abortion sentiments galvanized the fundamentalist evangelical movement, what actually galvanized the movement was evangelical opposition to the American Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS stripped evangelical universities, like Bob Jones University, from their tax-exempt status for remaining racially segregated. [35] It was not until 1980 that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion.[36][37]

Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention advocated for abortion rights.[38] During the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon "to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."[39] W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."[38]

[petegz28]

Is it news to you that most people who are pro-life also understand there are no absolutes in life and therefore recognize there are scenarios where an abortion is justified?

Too bad people on the Left like Hillary use the guise of "health of the mother" to justify late-term abortions when I believe the health of the mother is the issue at hand around 1%-2% of the time in regards to said late-term abortions.

And I know several "Republicans" that oppose abortion because it is being shoved down our throats from the USSC and Fed level when it should be a State issue. Thus the reluctance to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Fed loses their power.

SICK

[Adept Havelock]

Before 1980, the Southern Baptist Convention advocated for abortion rights.[38] During the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon "to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."[39] W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."[/B][38][/I][/INDENT]

:hmmm:

Quite the flip-flop from the SBC. Interesting find, jAZ. Thanks.

[Direckshun]

And I know several "Republicans" that oppose abortion because it is being shoved down our throats from the USSC and Fed level when it should be a State issue. Thus the reluctance to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Fed loses their power.

I'm going to need something explained to me.

Why exactly should abortion be a state issue?

Isn't this a decision of life or death? Wouldn't most evangelicals believe, then, that it pro-life should be Federal Law in this country rather than State Law in a handful of states?

[petegz28]

I'm going to need something explained to me.

Why exactly should abortion be a state issue?

Isn't this a decision of life or death? Wouldn't most evangelicals believe, then, that it pro-life should be Federal Law in this country rather than State Law in a handful of states?

Why? Because I believe it was a very , VERY loose interpretation used by the USSC under the whole "Right to Privacy" bullshit. And most of the Cons and Libertarians I know believe the people of the State should vote on whether aboriton should be allowed.

Primarily my reason at least, is I deem the loose interpretation as a power grab by the courts and the Fed Gov. I am an staunch proponent of limited federal involvment.
Some evangelicals that I do know are against abortion period, regardless of cirucmstance. Well, I know 2 people like that.

And now it has been allowed to become a pawn in politics and it doesn't belong there. There is so much hyporcracy around abortion in and of itself, it is pathetic.

If you murder a pregnant woman you are charged with two murders. Regardless if the pregnant woman you murdered was on her way to the abortion clinic. But yet for some reason of "privacy" a woman can abort, notice we moved from murder to "abort" the uh-hum, fetus, because they aren't babies if they are aborted, for some irrational reason.

[bango]

I'm going to need something explained to me.

Why exactly should abortion be a state issue?

Isn't this a decision of life or death? Wouldn't most evangelicals believe, then, that it pro-life should be Federal Law in this country rather than State Law in a handful of states?

I have wondered this myself. The only thing that I can come up with is that if they can get it outlawed in some states then they get a victory and a half. They get a win in the sense that it will not be legal in the entire country anymore. The half part is that they can up their efforts in less areas and feel more powerful. They can concentrate on the few states that still have it legal and try to outlaw it in those states.

[petegz28]

I have wondered this myself. The only thing that I can come up with is that if they can get it outlawed in some states then they get a victory and a half. They get a win in the sense that it will not be legal in the entire country anymore. The half part is that they can up their efforts in less areas and feel more powerful. They can concentrate on the few states that still have it legal and try to outlaw it in those states.

Really? That is what you think? You are wrong but go ahead and think what you wish.

See, you want to view it as a win-lose on abortion.

And what I am trying to point out to you is a lot of us view it as a State's Rights issue and a power grab by a VERY liberal interpretation of the Constitution by the USSC.

But I guess that whole concept never dawned on you, heh? :drool:

[Jenson71]

Really? That is what you think? You are wrong but go ahead and think what you wish.

See, you want to view it as a win-lose on abortion.

And what I am trying to point out to you is a lot of us view it as a State's Rights issue and a power grab by a VERY liberal interpretation of the Constitution by the USSC.

But I guess that whole concept never dawned on you, heh? :drool:

A number of states were allowing abortion before Roe v. Wade. In fact, the decision was just part of a larger trend, unfortunately.

[petegz28]

A number of states were allowing abortion before Roe v. Wade. In fact, the decision was just part of a larger trend, unfortunately.


I know they were. And that was just fine for me until the Fed Gov and USSC made a power grab. Do you realize the woman who was Roe didn't even want to follow through on the court case?

[Jenson71]

I know they were. And that was just fine for me until the Fed Gov and USSC made a power grab. Do you realize the woman who was Roe didn't even want to follow through on the court case?

It doesn't make any moral sense for abortion to be fine in California, but illegal in Kansas.

[petegz28]

It doesn't make any moral sense for abortion to be fine in California, but illegal in Kansas.

You cannot legislate morality. And yes it does make sense. There are differing laws of all kinds among the States.

This is the United STATES of America. Not "America". Or didn't they teach you that in Poly Sci class?

I love how undemocratic the Democrats are when it comes to abortion.

[Reaper16]

Or didn't they teach you that in Poly Sci class?

You've been criticism Jenson for going to college every 6th post for the last two days. The anti-intellectualism coming from you is astounding.

[Jenson71]

You cannot legislate morality. And yes it does make sense. There are differing laws of all kinds among the States.

This is the United STATES of America. Not "America". Or didn't they teach you that in Poly Sci class?

You can't legislate morality? A lot of law is morality. It doesn't make sense for a person to believe abortion should be considered murder in Kansas, but fine in California.

[petegz28]

You've been criticism Jenson for going to college every 6th post for the last two days. The anti-intellectualism coming from you is astounding.

I'm not trying to belittle his schooling. Sorry if it comes off that way. I am however trying to tell him that life don't work the way his school books and teachers think or claim it does.

[petegz28]

You can't legislate morality? A lot of law is morality. It doesn't make sense for a person to believe abortion should be considered murder in Kansas, but fine in California.

Morality is a point of view. Case in point.

[Jenson71]

Morality is a point of view. Case in point.

So California voting to kill blacks - fine and dandy?

[petegz28]

So California voting to kill blacks - fine and dandy?

Are you trying to imply racism and abortion are equal somehow?

Obviously it is ok to kill unborn black babies in CA. I fail to see your point?

[BucEyedPea]

So California voting to kill blacks - fine and dandy?

Well, I'd say killing people is a generally or univerally agreed upon point-of-view as being wrong. But every society has it's excuses for breaking this universal moral point too. We all have blind spots.

[BucEyedPea]

Morality is a point of view. Case in point.

Yeah, but all law is based on someone's morality too.

[Jenson71]

Are you trying to imply racism and abortion are equal somehow?

Obviously it is ok to kill unborn black babies in CA. I fail to see your point?

My point is we have a lot of laws based on morality. You're confused about a lot of things. But this is most confusing: abortion should be murder in Kansas, but fine in California.

[petegz28]

Yeah, but all law is based on someone's morality too.

I will have to agree with that to a point.

[petegz28]

My point is we have a lot of laws based on morality. You're confused about a lot of things. But this is most confusing: abortion should be murder in Kansas, but fine in California.

Until someone can prove scienfically one way or the other when it is a baby and when it is not I think it is not for the Fed Gov to decide.

Liken it to bars staying open until 3:00 in Mo and 2:00 in Ks.

Do you think it fine to charge someone who murderes a pregnant woman with 2 murders yet allow the same woman to destroy her "fetus"?

See how that works? In fact in the state you want to keep talking about, CA, you can look right to the Scott Peterson case to witness said hypocracy on abortion.

[bango]

Really? That is what you think? You are wrong but go ahead and think what you wish.

See, you want to view it as a win-lose on abortion.

And what I am trying to point out to you is a lot of us view it as a State's Rights issue and a power grab by a VERY liberal interpretation of the Constitution by the USSC.

But I guess that whole concept never dawned on you, heh? :drool:

Actualy the fact that I am one of those people means that it may have crossed my mind once or twice. I would discuss it further with you, but as this is the first time that we have crossed paths and you have felt the need to call me out and imply that I am a retard, why should I bother?

[Jenson71]

Until someone can prove scienfically one way or the other when it is a baby and when it is not I think it is not for the Fed Gov to decide.

Liken it to bars staying open until 3:00 in Mo and 2:00 in Ks.

I don't consider an appropriate analogy of abortion is bar closings.

The Fed Gov didn't say everyone had to get an abortion. They just said they could. Now everyone gets their own choice!

Yeah, if you can't tell, and I don't think you can, I'm against abortion. Universally against. At least it's consistent. ****. Even when you're right you're wrong.

[petegz28]

Actualy the fact that I am one of those people means that it may have crossed my mind once or twice. I would discuss it further with you, but as this is the first time that we have crossed paths and you have felt the need to call me out and imply that I am a retard, why should I bother?

If this had thought had acutally crossed your mind you would not of asked me to explain it.

PErhaps that lead to what you feel was an insulting comment based on your furhter posts where you somehow still failed to realize the point I was making. Even though you are "one of those people".

[petegz28]

I don't consider an appropriate analogy of abortion is bar closings.

The Fed Gov didn't say everyone had to get an abortion. They just said they could. Now everyone gets their own choice!

Yeah, if you can't tell, and I don't think you can, I'm against abortion. Universally against. At least it's consistent. ****. Even when you're right you're wrong.

Yea they did and that is the poroblem. When is it a life and when is it not? Why is it murder on one day and abortion the next?

Or basically you are saying that as long as the USSC let's everyone murder and unborn it's ok?

[Jenson71]

Yea they did and that is the poroblem. When is it a life and when is it not? Why is it murder on one day and abortion the next?

Or basically you are saying that as long as the USSC let's everyone murder and unborn it's ok?

You think the Fed Gov made abortions mandatory?

"Until someone can prove scienfically one way or the other when it is a baby and when it is not I think it is not for the Fed Gov to decide."

The Fed Gov gave the woman complete choice to choose herself -- she decides.

What is the difference between State and Fed deciding it? The ony difference is a political difference. Your states' rights argument.

[petegz28]

You think the Fed Gov made abortions mandatory?

"Until someone can prove scienfically one way or the other when it is a baby and when it is not I think it is not for the Fed Gov to decide."

The Fed Gov gave the woman complete choice to choose herself -- she decides.

What is the difference between State and Fed deciding it? The ony difference is a political difference. Your states' rights argument.

No that is not what I said. How you got that I have no clue? How is the word "let's" equated to "mandates"?

I said the USSC said every could get and abortionm thus condoning the murder of unborns.

The difference between the State and Fed is a matter of idealogy. There was an entire war fought over that ideology. Perhaps you have heard of it?

And since you have this figures out tell me, why is it a life and a baby when a pregmant woman is murdered but not a life and referred to as a "fetus" when an abortion is performed?

So where you say the Fed granted everyone the Right to an abortion, I say they condoned the murder of unborn babies.

You obviously will keep ignoring the blatan hypocracy though.

[bango]

[QUOTE=petegz28;5309339]If this had thought had acutally crossed your mind you would not of asked me to explain it.

PErhaps that lead to what you feel was an insulting comment based on your furhter posts where you somehow still failed to realize the point I was making. Even though you are "one of those people".[/QUOTE

Why do you have to be so difficult? I mean who the hell died and made you Grace Kelly? Get over yourself. It will be better for all of us, and that includes yourself. You know the reason that you are the way that you are and why you hold all of your stances.

[Jenson71]

So where you say the Fed granted everyone the Right to an abortion, I say they condoned the murder of unborn babies.

But it's okay for states to allow the murder of unborn babies, Is that right?

[bango]

No that is not what I said. How you got that I have no clue? How is the word "let's" equated to "mandates"?

I said the USSC said every could get and abortionm thus condoning the murder of unborns.

The difference between the State and Fed is a matter of idealogy. There was an entire war fought over that ideology. Perhaps you have heard of it?

And since you have this figures out tell me, why is it a life and a baby when a pregmant woman is murdered but not a life and referred to as a "fetus" when an abortion is performed?

So where you say the Fed granted everyone the Right to an abortion, I say they condoned the murder of unborn babies.

You obviously will keep ignoring the blatan hypocracy though.

Then why the heck aren't the far rightie evangelicals all up in arms about this then? You do not even hear one peep about it. They are being hypocitical also. I can tell you why I think that it is. It is because they want their way. That is what I was saying in my first post on this this thread.

[petegz28]

Then why the heck aren't the far rightie evangelicals all up in arms about this then? You do not even hear one peep about it. They are being hypocitical also. I can tell you why I think that it is. It is because they want their way. That is what I was saying in my first post on this this thread.

You answered your own question....:thumb:

[Adept Havelock]

Why do you have to be so difficult?

The guy has almost 900 posts in the last 7 days, the majority of which call everyone who disagrees with him an idiot or retard.

I think that speaks for itself. ROFL

Sure, I snark at certain folks (shts prayer, pete, recxjake)...but 850 or so in 7 days? :eek:

- ahem, shut your mouth - would be proud.

Oh, and in anticipation of Pete's response, yes, I've insulted you. That said, there are plenty of folks with whom I disagree on various issues who I don't insult. Patteeu, D2112, Chief4ever, alanm, Kotter, etc. Why? Respect. ;)

[petegz28]

The guy has almost 900 posts in the last 7 days, the majority of which call everyone who disagrees with him an idiot or retard.

I think that speaks for itself. ROFL

Sure, I snark at certain folks (shts prayer, pete, recxjake)...but 850 or so in 7 days? :eek:

- ahem, shut your mouth - would be proud.

:LOL:
JFC dude, you count people's posts? If you must know I been laying down sick pretty much this entire week and this is about my only form of entertainment.

The fact you post count explains a lot about you and why you are going back on my ignore list. Only this time cause you just seem a little too fucking weird.

[Adept Havelock]

:LOL:
JFC dude, you count people's posts?

:spock:

Nope, no need. Besides, you're not worth the time that would take. ;)

http://e.imagehost.org/0977/threadcount.jpg

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php

Scroll to the bottom of the list. :shrug:


If you must know I been laying down sick pretty much this entire week and this is about my only form of entertainment.
If you consider spending the majority of 7 days insulting people entertaining...each to their own. :shrug:


The fact you post count explains a lot about you and why you are going back on my ignore list.

While the first part of your statement is unintelligible, I'll thank you for the latter part. :thumb:


edit- You deleting posts since I made the first cap is even more hilarious. I wonder how low you'll drive that total?

This ranks up there with recxjake deleting his own comments running down McCain when he started supporting him. Thanks for the guffaw, petey! :thumb:

http://e.imagehost.org/0945/threads2.jpg

[Pitt Gorilla]

I am an staunch proponent of limited federal involvment. So, you believe people should have MORE personal freedom, or are you just a staunch proponent of restrictive state government?

[petegz28]

:spock:

Nope, no need. Besides, you're not worth the time that would take. ;)

http://e.imagehost.org/0977/threadcount.jpg

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php

Scroll to the bottom of the list. :shrug:


If you consider spending the majority of 7 days insulting people entertaining...each to their own. :shrug:



While the first part of your statement is unintelligible, I'll thank you for the latter part. :thumb:


edit- You deleting posts since I made the first cap is even more hilarious. I wonder how low you'll drive that total?

This ranks up there with recxjake deleting his own comments running down McCain when he started supporting him. Thanks for the guffaw, petey! ROFL

http://e.imagehost.org/0974/threads2.jpg


Whatever floats your boat, weirdo. :rolleyes:

[Adept Havelock]

Whatever floats your boat, weirdo. :rolleyes:

Yeah, I'm weird because I noticed that you had 850 posts in the space of seven days. ROFL

Hey, how did you see that response? I thought I was going back on iggy? OH NOES!! TEH HORRORS!!!! LMAO

[petegz28]

So, you believe people should have MORE personal freedom, or are you just a staunch proponent of restrictive state government?

Depends what you mean by MORE personal freedom? If by that you mean more freedom from the Fed Gov then yes.

I would be less opposed to more restrictive State Gov then I would Fed Gov if that is what you are asking?

[petegz28]

Yeah, I'm weird because I noticed that you had 850 votes in the space of seven days. ROFL

Hey, how did you see that response? I thought I was going back on iggy? OH NOES!! TEH HORRORS!!!! LMAO

Yes, let me add you back now. Thanks for the reminder Mr. Board Nazi. :)

[Adept Havelock]

Yes, let me add you back now. Thanks for the reminder Mr. Board Nazi. :)

You're quite welcome. As always, It's been a pleasure hoisting you by your own petard.

[whoman69]

The simple fact is that while some on the religious right can see the broader picture, pressure has been placed on the Republican party for a very strict interpretation that does not allow for abortions under any circumstances. John McCain couldn't even try to fight this because he risked losing his base. Its sort of like the NRAs decision to fight any form of weapons control no matter the logic of the situation.

The fact that the Republican party presented an economic face that backed the richest Americans lost them their less staunch backers despite their views on abortion. For too long many were Republicans due to this one devisive issue only. Going forward they are going to need to find a new schtick especially when they had 6 years with the executive office and majority control in both Congress and the Supreme Court, while the issue only became more convaluted to include stem cells. You could see in many of the ads placed by these right wing groups that they still expected their followers to vote based upon only one issue.