2024 Presidential Election

Up through the 60s and 70s religious leaders in the US weren't opposed to abortion. Abortion wasn't a religious or ethical concern until the GOP made it one to get evangelicals on their side when they didn't think race would work. The evangelicals got played for political gain.Now people have grown up with it ingrained in them from childhood that it's never ok.

I grew up SBC and was VERY pro-life until I got out of OK and saw the rest of the world, opened my eyes to other people's conditions and circumstances where I realized I shouldn't be the one to prevent someone from making a decision that won't effect me for a minute but would effect them for decades. No one goes in at 30 or whatever weeks and has just suddenly decided to end the pregnancy for funsies. Any pregnancy going that long was wanted and will be mourned as a loss.


"The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society to discuss the morality of abortion. The gathering attracted 26 heavyweight theologians from throughout the evangelical world, who debated the matter over several days and then issued a statement acknowledging the ambiguities surrounding the issue, which, they said, allowed for many different approaches.

“Whether the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed,” the statement read, “but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”

Two successive editors of Christianity Today took equivocal stands on abortion. Carl F. H. Henry, the magazine’s founder, affirmed that “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others,” and his successor, Harold Lindsell, allowed that, “if there are compelling psychiatric reasons from a Christian point of view, mercy and prudence may favor a therapeutic abortion.”

Meeting in St. Louis in 1971, the messengers (delegates) to the Southern Baptist Convention, hardly a redoubt of liberalism, passed a resolution calling for the legalization of abortion, a position they reaffirmed in 1974 — a year after Roe — and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and sometime president of the Southern Baptist Convention, issued a statement praising the ruling. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

When Francis Schaeffer, the intellectual godfather of the Religious Right, tried to enlist Billy Graham in his antiabortion crusade in the late 1970s, Graham, the most famous evangelical of the 20th century, turned him down. Even James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who later became an implacable foe of abortion, acknowledged in 1973 that the Bible was silent on the matter and therefore it was plausible for an evangelical to believe that “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.”

According to Paul Weyrich, a conservative activist and architect of the Religious Right, the movement started in the 1970s in response to attempts on the part of the Internal Revenue Service to rescind the tax-exempt status of whites-only segregation academies (many of them church sponsored) and Bob Jones University because of its segregationist policies. Among those affected was Jerry Falwell, who referred to the civil rights movement as “civil wrongs” and who had opened his own segregation academy in 1967. The IRS actions against racially segregated institutions, not abortion, is what mobilized evangelical activists in the 1970s, and they directed their ire against a fellow evangelical, Jimmy Carter, in the run-up to the 1980 presidential election.

Weyrich’s genius, however, lay in his understanding that racism — the defense of racial segregation — was not likely to energize grassroots evangelical voters. So he, Falwell and others deftly flipped the script. Instead of the Religious Right mobilizing in defense of segregation, evangelical leaders in the late 1970s decried government intrusion into their affairs as an assault on religious freedom, thereby writing a page for the modern Republican Party playbook, used shamelessly in the Hobby Lobby and the Masterpiece Cakeshop cases.
 
Good grief dude.

What would Jesus say if He saw that video? That while on earth that He wishes that He declared all abortions should be banned and that if a woman is dying from her pregnancy, then it's due to God's will that she should never give birth. Anyway, if I was that baby, I would lovingly be wanted when born. I would not want to be born unwanted, unloved with possibly no father to be found.
 
Last edited:
What would Jesus say if He saw that video? That while on earth that he wished he declared all abortions be banned and that if a woman is dying from her pregnancy, then it's due to God's will that she should never give birth. Anyway, if I was that baby, I would lovingly be wanted when born. I would not want to be born unwanted, unloved with possibly no father to be found.
Probably not just unwanted but also blamed by the mother for ruining her life. No way to live. Unsupported, unloved, uncared for... sounds like a recipe for a person growing up to be a not positive member of society.
 
During Trump's first 4 years, he gave a middle finger to NATO and alienated US allies. He also called top military officials "effing idiots," because they did not support Trump effing up our superpower status via alienating our allies. In return, a top military official called Trump "a terrorist, fascist and a complete moron. Trump is a fascist to the core." Trump is a fool. He severely weakend the US superpower status. He will do it again.

We will soon have a convicted felon as our president. Trump will once again drop his pants and will bend over in front of Putin. I wonder if he'll mock disabled people this go-round. Go to YouTube and type in 'Trump mocking disabled people," and you'll find that Trump is a god damn gigantic pile of shet.

I will edit this post when I'm home from work, because I have so much more to say about this horrific situation we'll soon find ourselves in. I mean , Harris has no business being in the White House either.. but she was by far the better choice between her and Trump
 
To me abortion isn't a political issue.
The technology is out there and rich people will always be able to get them regardless of whatever silly laws.
I don't hate organized religion, but it's a woman's GD choice and if you don't like that, you don't understand science.

I'd love to get abortion out of the political narrative. It's a distraction, not a real issue.
I...can't tell if this post is satire.

Your assertion that "rich people" can get abortions is literally the problem. You know who generally needs more access? Poor people, and people of color.

And organized religion is the entire reason that we're in this spot. Religion and science aren't friends. That's the whole point.

The ENTIRE point is that we, as males, are arguing about what a woman can do with her body. It's not our place! Any law restricting what anybody can do with their own body is wrong. It's women's health...not "what a man can tell a woman to do with her body" health.

You have the luxury to say "it's not a real issue". It's a very real issue, and it's not just about abortion. It's access to critical health care. It's making 50% of this country have to ask permission on how to handle their own body.

I'll say it again for the people in the back: You want less abortion, provide more sex education. Forcing woman to have babies (and make unwilling fathers) is not it.
 
This wouldn’t even be a thing if California, Arizona and a few other states were required to go through a FL/TX school of vote counting. Both TX and FL were at 99% within 8-10 hours. CA and AZ are still sitting around at 55-65% two days after Election Day.
Amen. At this point it's beyond ridiculous.
 
This wouldn’t even be a thing if California, Arizona and a few other states were required to go through a FL/TX school of vote counting. Both TX and FL were at 99% within 8-10 hours. CA and AZ are still sitting around at 55-65% two days after Election Day.

Sure. Maybe. I just don't think you should take things like that and somehow get to stolen election. A lot of people did.
 
Kind of where I was heading with my post. People decided on abortion it's no longer the bigger topic.....it wasn't in the blue wall states. I'm betting the border was a bigger issue for many in AZ. Another issue that killed Harris. She never answered as to why they opened the border and left it open for three years or why the 118B border bill was 90B of foreign military aid. Zona and NV flipped and lost ground in CO,NM, and CA. The dems did a horrible job campaigning and picked the wrong person. They lost 20M votes in the middle of the political spectrum. That's not Trumps fault it's theirs.
The border was never made opened. Instead, the border patrol was overwhelmed by many more thousands wanting in and getting in as in the Chinese who were coming in at a gap at the end of a fence. No border patrol around to stop them. Of course, one may say border was the same as wide open. Trump stopped efforts for more border control, so it will be interesting to see how sincere he is in getting the border under better control. To answer that question independent candidate for president Dr. Shiva said, "F--k no!"
 
Last edited:
I will edit this post when I'm home from work, because I have so much more to say about this horrific situation we'll soon find ourselves in.

Happy Jimmy Fallon GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 
To me abortion isn't a political issue.
The technology is out there and rich people will always be able to get them regardless of whatever silly laws.
I don't hate organized religion, but it's a woman's GD choice and if you don't like that, you don't understand science.

I'd love to get abortion out of the political narrative. It's a distraction, not a real issue.

While "rich people will always be able to get them regardless of whatever silly laws" (which is self-evidently true), the same is absolutely not true for the non-rich or poor.

It's inherently a political issue.
 
Emotive language is used all the time and that is normal. The problem is that it isn't meant to make policy. If I tell a co-worker who helped me out, "Hey, you're the best!" that doesn't mean that if we were both up for a promotion that I would expect the employer to say "We like you, but you called him 'the best' therefore he is the best, and we have to choose him."

Calling an embryo a baby in common speech is emotive and fine. I don't agree when using it to call people with a different opinion than you "baby murderers."

I’m not disagreeing with you. I would add that when we’re talking policy the issue is personhood, and as I said, I am not as sure about the ethics as I once was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Thanks for sharing, I really do appreciate it. I find so, so much wrong with this take, though. I don't want to get into yet another internet argument over it, because it does nothing for me and my mental health. If we're ever in the same place I would gladly sit down with you over a beer and discuss.

I've got to be done for a little bit, though. I'm tired, boss.
 
Back
Top