Abortion Backlash Freaking Out Republicans

That is not how logic works.

In the small pictures are the materials, that were used that became the building.

7hnlwj.jpg



No one stepped in and stopped the progression that lead to the building coming into existence.

Had someone stepped in and stopped it those materials would not be 'unborn buildings'. You need to be smarter than that.

They have the potential, if allowed to progress to be a building, but they are not that thing, if stopped prior to development. At a certain point we can and will recognize them as that building but also at a certain point we recognize they are not.

Buildings aren't humans.

Try to be smarter than that.
 
you realize you're still a liberal fuck either way, right?.....

As with everything you are again a Derp being manipulated.

Racist southerners, largely evangelicals were largely checking out of politics and stopping voting as desegregation was forcing them to not block POC from their rights. Racist southerners in a temper tantrum at losing court cases and not allowed to discriminate were checking out of the political process, including voting and that was hurting the GOP.

The GOP did then, what Trump did more recently and asked themselves if they could manufacture a fake issue and manipulate the derp GOP, mostly evangelical voters to vote for them, and abortion was decided upon even though Evangelicals had been a big supporter of abortions rights prior.

that did not matter as those doing the manipulation (like Trump did) realized the audience (GOp voters and evangelicals) were gullible and dumb.



...But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.


Today, evangelicals make up the backbone of the pro-life movement, but it hasn’t always been so. Both before and for several years after Roe, evangelicals were overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists 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.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “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,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

So what then were the real origins of the religious right? It turns out that the movement can trace its political roots back to a court ruling, but not Roe v. Wade.

In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions. The schools had been founded in the mid-1960s in response to the desegregation of public schools set in motion by the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. In 1969, the first year of desegregation, the number of white students enrolled in public schools in Holmes County dropped from 771 to 28; the following year, that number fell to zero.

...

cite


this is all a disguised tantrum because the law won't allow evangelicals to hate in public via discrimination that Politicians have been able to easily manipulate because they know that population of voters is dumb and easily manipulated.
 
Link, please? Meanwhile, there is this:





Thank you, I also respect yours. Because they are living human beings, not dependent-upon-the-placenta/uterus embryos/fetuses. If a pregnant woman did something to cause a miscarriage, such as falling down the stairs or engaging in some strenuous physical activity, should we punish her for losing the fetus/embryo? No sane person would advocate for that. So what is the difference if she takes a pill that causes the embryo to abort? Or has a procedure done with the same result?

Again, the desire is to punish women for having sex that leads to pregnancy. It is not about saving lives, or we wouldn't be having school massacres every other week. Why does the right to have military-style firearms trump the rights of living children to stay that way? I reject any and all anti-abortion arguments made by those who refuse to address the right to life of already-born children.



See, control of women's sexuality is the goal, just as I said. "Sluts" will be punished. *sigh*

I'm glad that I wasn't born to a mother who didn't want me but was forced to have me anyways. I bet you are too.

Are you saying that women bear no responsibiliy when it comes to pregnancy? The way I see it it takes two to create a child so abortion should be a joint decision. Unless you are one of the free women on Maury's show that test multiple men to determine who the father is. LOL
 
Buildings aren't humans.

Try to be smarter than that.

No one said they were dufus.

You need to be smarter and understand the point which is the basic components of anything are not that thing simply because if you do not stop the process they will become that thing.


It is not a building just because it will become one if no one stops the process. The components are NOT a building.

It is not a baby, simply because it will become one if no one stops the process. Just as a condom stopping your sperm reaching the egg did not kill a baby as there was no baby there simply because one could form if you did not block it.


So stop making these stupid arguments that 'blocking the process' = 'killing a baby', as it is not.
 
Are you saying that women bear no responsibiliy when it comes to pregnancy? The way I see it it takes two to create a child so abortion should be a joint decision. Unless you are one of the free women on Maury's show that test multiple men to determine who the father is. LOL

Yuck. Both partners are responsible, obviously. However, only one bears the financial, emotional, and physical costs involved. Logically, that person should have more say over the outcome.
 
I have never understood how Republicans continue to follow Donald Trump's lead and thinking they can continually slice and dice their peers up- as they watch their following crowd get smaller and smaller everyday!

Yep! They just dig in and continue to circle their wagons, and they keep firing lead, with fewer wagons to circle everyday!

Let's take our fellow Trump supporting contributors here in this forum for example!

Does anyone here, in their right mind, believe that their behaviors and opinions expressed here in the forum is winning any influence with their political adversaries?

Has any of you seen the Trump followers even try to hand you an olive branch in any way? Do they even appear to be capable of reasoning or using common sense anymore?

No Sir, the only thing they have done for me, is make me stand proud to be voting with the Democrats!

I do not even care what they care about anymore! They seem to be off chasing their own tail- like a desert rat- attracting the bite of a snake!
 
Last edited:
You are correct.

History has shown us that one group trying to assert control over another, whether it be slavery, oppression of the jews, or now womens choice and reproductive health, even if once supported by the majority will be rejected.

Good point.

lol....says the guy currently standing as King of the Hill for "groups"......
 
Link, please? Meanwhile, there is this:





Thank you, I also respect yours. Because they are living human beings, not dependent-upon-the-placenta/uterus embryos/fetuses. If a pregnant woman did something to cause a miscarriage, such as falling down the stairs or engaging in some strenuous physical activity, should we punish her for losing the fetus/embryo? No sane person would advocate for that. So what is the difference if she takes a pill that causes the embryo to abort? Or has a procedure done with the same result?

Again, the desire is to punish women for having sex that leads to pregnancy. It is not about saving lives, or we wouldn't be having school massacres every other week. Why does the right to have military-style firearms trump the rights of living children to stay that way? I reject any and all anti-abortion arguments made by those who refuse to address the right to life of already-born children.



See, control of women's sexuality is the goal, just as I said. "Sluts" will be punished. *sigh*

I'm glad that I wasn't born to a mother who didn't want me but was forced to have me anyways. I bet you are too.

Good post.

Religious fundamentalists have three key goals, regardless of stripe, Taliban or Evangelical or other.

- Put the control of womens sexaulity and choices in men's hands
- have sex occur in marriage only and always to the ends of having more children
- Increase the number of adherents in the religion by pushing the above policy


It is a goal based in a belief that domination of the political space is based in winning the population race. Out breed the 'others' and you can control the 'others'.
 
Good post.

Religious fundamentalists have three key goals, regardless of stripe, Taliban or Evangelical or other.

- Put the control of womens sexaulity and choices in men's hands
- have sex occur in marriage only and always to the ends of having more children
- Increase the number of adherents in the religion by pushing the above policy


It is a goal based in a belief that domination of the political space is based in winning the population race. Out breed the 'others' and you can control the 'others'.

Yep. No doubt you've heard of the "Quiverfull" fundie Xtian movement?
 
Yuck. Both partners are responsible, obviously. However, only one bears the financial, emotional, and physical costs involved. Logically, that person should have more say over the outcome.

I will give you the emotional and physical parts. Not knowing the people involved we cannot determine who will bear the financial costs. But then we are senior citizens so we don't look at things like people in their 20s to 40s do.
 
Yep. No doubt you've heard of the "Quiverfull" fundie Xtian movement?

Yup.

Most people do not realize that Religions were formed mainly as a way to counter the power of birthright and Kings in the early ages.

Many smart people got frustrated by the reality that unless born to certain family, they could hold no power, raise no armies, etc and yet the often, idiots kids via birth right, could.

Creating a Church allowed for that. Many of the earliest Popes were war lords.

A church could hold lands, control an army, and raise money via tithing, that could compete with the taxes a gov't could raise.

Kings work top down by trying to control, or create an elite class to control the masses. the Church wants to control the same masses but so does from the ground up.


Both organized Religion and the monarchy class are terrible for societies generally. They are the cause of the most wars, death and conflict, in human history.
 
Yup.

Most people do not realize that Religions were formed mainly as a way to counter the power of birthright and Kings in the early ages....

Wow. That's some real distorted thinking. I can see how some people used religion for that purpose, but religion isn't a conspiracy theory, dude. It wasn't "formed mainly" to take down the King. It grew from the spirituality of its followers.

Have you ever wondered why African-Americans, on average, are more religious than Euro-Americans?
 
They are prioritizing evil over the lives of unborn children and there will be a judgement day…for all.

Do you realize every one is not a christer? no one is forcing you christers to get an abortion

Not all religions oppose abortion

For decades, the Christian religious right’s opposition to abortion has dominated the reproductive rights debate in the United States. Activists spent years pushing states and the federal government toward more restrictive policies; those efforts culminated in the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the constitutionally protected right to an abortion.

Christians aren’t the only people of faith with deeply held religious convictions regarding reproductive rights. Judaism not only teaches that abortion is permitted, but compels Jewish faith leaders to fight for reproductive rights, says Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, an author, scholar in residence for the National Council of Jewish Women, and creator of Rabbis for Repro, a national network of Jewish clergy working to support reproductive rights in their communities and on a national level.


Abortion is permitted in Judaism, and when the life of the pregnant person is at stake, it is required. Judaism’s approach to abortion finds its basis in the book of Exodus. There’s a case where two people are fighting, and one person knocks over a pregnant person and causes a miscarriage. It says very clearly, if it’s only a miscarriage, then the person who caused the harm is obligated to pay monetary fines as damages, and if a pregnant person dies, then it is treated as manslaughter. So we see right away that in the book of Exodus it’s very clear that the fetus and pregnant person have different statuses, and causing a miscarriage is not treated as manslaughter. The fetus does not have the same status as a born human. It’s treated as potential life, rather than actual life.

There are two statements in the Talmud, codified in roughly 500 CE, that say for the first 40 days of pregnancy the fetus is “mere water” and doesn’t have any legal status at all, which incidentally is the same in Islam. For the first 40 days, the fetus has zero status, and from then on the fetus is considered a part of the pregnant person’s body — it is “as its mother’s thigh.” The fetus is an extension of the pregnant person until birth. It’s like that old slogan “my body, my choice”: it is literally her body! That makes intuitive sense and resonates with Roe and Casey’s delineation that abortion is permitted until viability. There’s a certain logic to all of that

https://www.vox.com/2022/7/3/23190408/judaism-rabbi-abortion-religion-reproductive-rights
 
Yup.

Most people do not realize that Religions were formed mainly as a way to counter the power of birthright and Kings in the early ages.

Many smart people got frustrated by the reality that unless born to certain family, they could hold no power, raise no armies, etc and yet the often, idiots kids via birth right, could.

Creating a Church allowed for that. Many of the earliest Popes were war lords.

A church could hold lands, control an army, and raise money via tithing, that could compete with the taxes a gov't could raise.

Kings work top down by trying to control, or create an elite class to control the masses. the Church wants to control the same masses but so does from the ground up.


Both organized Religion and the monarchy class are terrible for societies generally. They are the cause of the most wars, death and conflict, in human history.

I'd reword that to state that many *churches* were started for those reasons. Religion is as old as humanity and has existed long before there were towns and cities and kingdoms and countries.
 
Wow. That's some real distorted thinking. I can see how some people used religion for that purpose, but religion isn't a conspiracy theory, dude. It wasn't "formed mainly" to take down the King. It grew from the spirituality of its followers.

Have you ever wondered why African-Americans, on average, are more religious than Euro-Americans?

You need to educate yourself before commenting.

Religion as a Weapon of War:

...The evolution of the three monotheistic religions has created an environment in which particularly fierce wars may be waged in the name of religion. ...

...The Lord has given you the city! The city and everything in it must be totally destroyed as an offering to the Lord.” “ Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous."


The Pope's Soldiers: A Military History of the Modern Vatican

...Most students of history assume that the age of the "warlord popes" ended with the Renaissance, but, long after the victory of Catholic powers at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, the Papacy continued to entangle itself in martial affairs. The Vatican participated in six major military campaigns between 1796 and 1870, flew the papal flag over a warship as late as 1878, and during the Second World War mobilized more than 2,000 of its own troops to defend the Pope. David Alvarez now opens up this little-known aspect of the Papacy in the first general history of the papal armed forces. His is the first book in English to provide a comprehensive chronicle of the modern Vatican's military and security forces from 1796, when the armies of revolutionary France invaded the Papal States, through the wars for unification, to the present-day deployment of modern weapons, technology, and skills to protect the Holy Father and the Vatican from terrorists and assassins. Most papal histories make little reference to military affairs, while the few that address them do so only in passing or focus narrowly on particular units or campaigns. Alvarez's history expands our understanding of the Papacy's military through the exceptional research he has done as the first American scholar to gain access to the archive of the Pontifical Swiss Guard and the modern military records in the Vatican Secret Archive. He is also the first historian of any nationality to use the records of the Vatican Gendarmeria. Alvarez chronicles the exploits of the Vatican's military leaders and soldiers in their campaigns and battles, focusing on how those units under the Pope's authority--including the Vatican navy--engaged in actual military operations. He also deals extensively with the Vatican Gendarmeria as well as the Pope's Noble Guards, Palatine Guards, and Swiss Guards, describing their distinctive responsibilities and revealing the competition and internal tensions that sometimes undermined the morale, preparedness, and cohesion of the Pope's guards. Filled with information that will surprise scholars of the Papacy and military historians alike, Alvarez's highly original work illuminates a shadowy corner of Vatican history and will fascinate all readers interested in the role of the church in the broader world....
 
I'd reword that to state that many *churches* were started for those reasons. Religion is as old as humanity and has existed long before there were towns and cities and kingdoms and countries.

I think my use of 'Mainly' there achieves the desired effect.


The earliest forms of religion were mainly and basically political means by another ends. Ways to triabilize people to a common cause and often against a common foe.

Faith can come about organically but religion does not. It is a tool that certain people use to sway others, good or bad to common cause. The origin stories behind organized religion matter little. They have been recycled over and over throughout the age, basically like throwing spaghetti against the wall until something sticks.

The forms of Christianity a plagiarism from mostly Judaism and Egyptian mythology and so on and so on.

If Christianity did not stick and get wide adaption it would have been followed by another Religion origin story, taking all the parts that worked while jettisoning those that did not. Cut, paste, repeat until mass adoption by the sheep.

There is a reason they call the faithful the "FLOCK".
 
Good post.

Religious fundamentalists have three key goals, regardless of stripe, Taliban or Evangelical or other.

- Put the control of womens sexaulity and choices in men's hands
- have sex occur in marriage only and always to the ends of having more children
- Increase the number of adherents in the religion by pushing the above policy


It is a goal based in a belief that domination of the political space is based in winning the population race. Out breed the 'others' and you can control the 'others'.

As a Christian male all I can say is you must be a cult escapist. No church that I have ever been a member of has advocated the sexual subjugation of women. The church teaches us morality one of which is obeying the ten commandments on which most morals and laws are based.
You either associate with weak willed women or you believe all women choose to be dominated by men.
 
Wow. That's some real distorted thinking. I can see how some people used religion for that purpose, but religion isn't a conspiracy theory, dude. It wasn't "formed mainly" to take down the King. It grew from the spirituality of its followers.

Have you ever wondered why African-Americans, on average, are more religious than Euro-Americans?

Good answer the guy is fucked in the head.
 
I think my use of 'Mainly' there achieves the desired effect.


The earliest forms of religion were mainly and basically political means by another ends. Ways to triabilize people to a common cause and often against a common foe.

Faith can come about organically but religion does not. It is a tool that certain people use to sway others, good or bad to common cause. The origin stories behind organized religion matter little. They have been recycled over and over throughout the age, basically like throwing spaghetti against the wall until something sticks.

The forms of Christianity a plagiarism from mostly Judaism and Egyptian mythology and so on and so on.

If Christianity did not stick and get wide adaption it would have been followed by another Religion origin story, taking all the parts that worked while jettisoning those that did not. Cut, paste, repeat until mass adoption by the sheep.

There is a reason they call the faithful the "FLOCK".

yes... and...however... morality has a real value to humanity.
 
Back
Top