Why Were Christian Constitutional Conservatives So Wrong About Abortion??

[hadit]

I hadn't noted the government "telling me what to do"

I was living in Toronto in 2003 and working on Bay Street during the SARS outbreak. The entire city shut down because an unknown disease was making us sick. The government didn't do this, the people did, because it was how you respond to infectious disease. SARSTOCK - the big Rolling Stones Concert in Toronto that summer was the first big event in the city all year. Performers, tourists, everybody was afraid to come. And we weren't going out.

When corona virus hit, my first thought was to stay home, and keep safe, just like SARS. That the government mandated lockdowns was neither here nor there. Masks and lockdowns where what were doing in 2003, because that's smart behaviour in a pandemic.

You've not had a vaccine mandate?

 

[Dragonlady]

maybe don't have sex if you don't like the consequence?

Having a baby isn't a "consequence". It's a possibility, but not a certainty.

What you right wingers consistently tell us is that you HATE the fact that women are having sex for fun!!! It makes you fucking crazy that women are enjoying sexual freedom. Sluts!!! Baby haters! Uncaring, unfeeling, just out for a good time.

This is the set of Republican lies to sell the gullible and the ignorant that women shouldn't be ALLOWED to make such a decision because they're not responsible enough to make such an important decision. After all, they were irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex in the first place.

All of which ignores the role that men have in unplanned pregnancies. The world is full of fuck boys who will say or do anything, say anything, and risk everything, to get a piece of ass. Women don't get pregnant on their own. So when women get pregnant by rape, incest, or false promises, abortion bans prevent them from dealing with the "consequences" of these acts.

Maybe you need to stop telling the boys to "Get all you can while you can, by any means necessary", and start teaching boys about sexual responsibility.

 

[jc456]

Having a baby isn't a "consequence". It's a possibility, but not a certainty

It’s a possibility every time one has coitus, if fertility is still active! Every time

 

[kaz]

Check out the young women and infants in old cemeteries.

And? Yes, childbirth was dangerous in the past. What does that have to do with abortion?

 

[jc456]

And? Yes, childbirth was dangerous in the past. What does that have to do with abortion?

and read the dates.....18xx..............1920...............

 

[hadit]

Having a baby isn't a "consequence". It's a possibility, but not a certainty.

What you right wingers consistently tell us is that you HATE the fact that women are having sex for fun!!! It makes you fucking crazy that women are enjoying sexual freedom. Sluts!!! Baby haters! Uncaring, unfeeling, just out for a good time.

This is the set of Republican lies to sell the gullible and the ignorant that women shouldn't be ALLOWED to make such a decision because they're not responsible enough to make such an important decision. After all, they were irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex in the first place.

All of which ignores the role that men have in unplanned pregnancies. The world is full of fuck boys who will say or do anything, say anything, and risk everything, to get a piece of ass. Women don't get pregnant on their own. So when women get pregnant by rape, incest, or false promises, abortion bans prevent them from dealing with the "consequences" of these acts.

Maybe you need to stop telling the boys to "Get all you can while you can, by any means necessary", and start teaching boys about sexual responsibility.

You know who is very effective at teaching boys about sexual responsibility? Girls. If they make it easy, what's stopping the boys?

Why should a boy be sexually responsible today? There was a time that most girls said "no" and meant it. Sex was something a boy had to work to obtain. Virginity was not something to be discarded lightly, It MEANT something. THOSE are the days you're wanting to return to, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

 

[jc456]

You know who is very effective at teaching boys about sexual responsibility? Girls. If they make it easy, what's stopping the boys?

Why should a boy be sexually responsible today? There was a time that most girls said "no" and meant it. Sex was something a boy had to work to obtain. Virginity was not something to be discarded lightly, It MEANT something. THOSE are the days you're wanting to return to, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

here's a condom go fk now. If it breaks or leaks who cares, we'll kill the child.

 

[Dragonlady]

It’s a possibility every time one has coitus, if fertility is still active! Every time

A possibility is not a certainty, and a baby isn't a "consequence". It's also possibility that you will get AIDS or Herpes, Chamydia, or syphyllis when you have unprotected sex, but I don't see men wearing condoms to prevent ANY of this stuff from spreading.

You keep putting unplanned pregnancy off on the women. No woman gets pregnant all by herself. The male contribution had to come from someone. Time to teach men to be responsible for their actions and the "consequences" thereof, and stop blaming women for getting pregnant.

 

[jc456]

A possibility is not a certainty, and a baby isn't a "consequence". It's also possibility that you will get AIDS or Herpes, Chamydia, or syphyllis when you have unprotected sex, but I don't see men wearing condoms to prevent ANY of this stuff from spreading.

yep, so partner choice is important. Notice, choice there?

You keep putting unplanned pregnancy off on the women. No woman gets pregnant all by herself. The male contribution had to come from someone. Time to teach men to be responsible for their actions and the "consequences" thereof, and stop blaming women for getting pregnant.

The fk I do. It's as much the dude's fault as the woman's. you're not at all accurate as usual. Any day you'd really like to debate like a fking human, let me know. I hate dodging your weak ass shit throws.

 

[hadit]

A possibility is not a certainty, and a baby isn't a "consequence". It's also possibility that you will get AIDS or Herpes, Chamydia, or syphyllis when you have unprotected sex, but I don't see men wearing condoms to prevent ANY of this stuff from spreading.

You keep putting unplanned pregnancy off on the women. No woman gets pregnant all by herself. The male contribution had to come from someone. Time to teach men to be responsible for their actions and the "consequences" thereof, and stop blaming women for getting pregnant.

Sure, sure, we'll get right on that. You know full well society doesn't want anyone telling anyone to not have promiscuous unprotected sex. It only takes one partner, though, to make sure it happens, and since the woman deals with a whole lot more consequences and has a lot more at stake, she'd better make sure. You might as well focus on telling criminals to stop robbing stores instead of telling store owners to install security systems and locked doors.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The RCC, aka the one true church had it right all along, and that's all that matters.

Proof That It's a Hypocritical Power Wedge

Then why doesn't the Church baptize fetuses if they are actually babies?

 

[BS Filter]

Having a baby isn't a "consequence". It's a possibility, but not a certainty.

What you right wingers consistently tell us is that you HATE the fact that women are having sex for fun!!! It makes you fucking crazy that women are enjoying sexual freedom. Sluts!!! Baby haters! Uncaring, unfeeling, just out for a good time.

This is the set of Republican lies to sell the gullible and the ignorant that women shouldn't be ALLOWED to make such a decision because they're not responsible enough to make such an important decision. After all, they were irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex in the first place.

All of which ignores the role that men have in unplanned pregnancies. The world is full of fuck boys who will say or do anything, say anything, and risk everything, to get a piece of ass. Women don't get pregnant on their own. So when women get pregnant by rape, incest, or false promises, abortion bans prevent them from dealing with the "consequences" of these acts.

Maybe you need to stop telling the boys to "Get all you can while you can, by any means necessary", and start teaching boys about sexual responsibility.

Ever heard of birth control?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You’re asking why people were wrong? People are wrong all the time on just about everything. The fact that someone was wrong on a subject 50 years ago doesn’t change truth surround the subject

Slurpy Sermons

Nor does the fact that they were right then and wrong now.

 

[jc456]

Proof That It's a Hypocritical Power Wedge

Then why doesn't the Church baptize fetuses if they are actually babies?

how do you know they don't?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Abortion should be banned nationally. And soon it will be once we get personhood of the unborn acknowledge by the high court.

The "Unborn" Is No More a Valid Concept Than Is the "Undead"

 

[Couchpotato]

Proof That It's a Hypocritical Power Wedge

Then why doesn't the Church baptize fetuses if they are actually babies?

Baptism is a show of faith to follow in Christ’s footsteps. It has no bearing on your salvation. That said how would you baptize a fetus even if you wanted to?

 

[Mac-7]

Simple question.....thru-out the 60's and 70's -- why did so many Christian Conservatives who professed love for the Constitution; get it so wrong about abortion??

"White evangelicals in the 1970s did not mobilize against Roe v. Wade, which they considered a Catholic issue. They organized instead to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions, including Bob Jones University. The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society -- they concluded: “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. Carl F. H. Henry, the magazine’s founder, affirmed that “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others,"

The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth

White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.

www.politico.com

How could someone like the Christian Medical Society get it so wrong?? Did they not know Jesus is against abortion? The same Bible they used to condemn abortion now is the same Bible that existed then...how could they claim abortion is a necessity and permissible? Did they not care about the children? But it gets worse.....

"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."

Again, what Bible were these people looking at?? Abortion is murder and mothers should be put to death for such an abomination....why was there so much ambiguity on this?? No such wishy washy language existed when they were using Biblical justifications to call for executing gays or railing against the evils of desegregation and miscegenation -- why not that same heat for abortion?? but wait, there's more....even Ronald Reagan, the second coming of Jesus himself, signed into law a big pro-abortion bill...was he not a conservative then?? Did he not love Jesus?

"When the issue surfaced in the first months of his governorship, Reagan was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue that it is today. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.”

Reagan’s Darkest Hour | National Review

As president, Ronald Reagan was an unflagging champion of unborn human life. “Today there is a wound in our national conscience,” Reagan told a joint session of Congress in his 1986 State of the Un…

www.nationalreview.com

How could he have never given much thought to it, but then signed the most liberal pro-abortion bill in the country that year? Hell, even the great superhero Libertarian Conservative, Ayn Rand said this about abortion.....

View attachment 662093


I mean I know she is an Atheist and you right-wingers give her a pass because she hated black folks and other shit as much as you did -- but even for a Jesus-hating atheist, this is pretty twisted stuff from her.....how did these Conservatives get it all wrong -- and then all suddenly in the span of a few years -- suddenly launch a crusade against abortion and women's health rights??

Oh, I remember......racism......

"After several decades of research, I can state without fear of contradiction that evangelicals mobilized politically in the 1970s not, as commonly supposed, in opposition to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973, but rather in defense of racial segregation at Bob Jones University and at all-white “segregation academies,” many of them church-sponsored. The durability of what I call the abortion myth, the fiction that opposition to legalized abortion was the catalyst of their movement, can be attributed to the founders of the Religious Right themselves."

Column: Race, Reagan and the rise of the Religious Right

The overwhelming white evangelical support for Donald Trump is a puzzle that will occupy historians for generations. How can the Religious Right, a movement that trumpets its fidelity to “family values,” throw its support to a vulgar, thrice-married...

www.vnews.com

Like how Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980 to defend the right of universities like Bob Jones to racially segregate....I guess that is how Bob Jones was able to get away with banning interracial dating on their campus all the way up to the year 2000....Or how the founder of the Religious Right, Paul Weyrich was pissed that the IRS were planning to rescind the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions that instituted segregation....in the papers he wrote; he essentially admitted: "Now, Falwell and other leaders of the Religious Right had a “respectable” issue, opposition to abortion, one that would energize white evangelicals — and, not incidentally, divert attention from the real origins of "our movement."

Paul M. Weyrich papers - Archives West

Archives West provides access to descriptions of primary sources in the western United States, including correspondence, diaries, and photographs. Digital reproductions of primary sources are available in some cases. Archives West was formerly known as the Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA).

archiveswest.orbiscascade.org

So once abortion is banned at the federal level, because that is definitely next -- what more red meat can you offer to the rabid evangelical base?? Because the beast will have to be fed.....can't be abortion anymore....Contraceptives?? Yea, that may hold them off for a moment....but sooner or later, you are going to have to throw them a bone and do something about their first love....segregation....at least bring back the whole separate but equal doctrine and use that to get your segregation rocks off....it's definitely coming...people like me have been right about the religious right so far.....even when so-called "small government Conservatives" were assuring us "relax bro, you are just overreacting, no one is asking for that" -- when it came to banning abortion, same-sex marriages, epealing Lawrence v Texas; and ultimately attacking the very concept of the 14th amendment....oh, but when that pendulum swings back in the other direction....I doubt many of the reactionary right-wingers will be able to handle it...they are far too fragile to deal with an ounce of the oppression they love seeing inflicted on others...because for a right-winger, equality feels like oppression...always have been....

Hey Biff

Your leftwing source is full of shit

I cant speak for blowhards on the national level

But rank and file Christians clearly see abortion as morally wrong

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Simple question.....thru-out the 60's and 70's -- why did so many Christian Conservatives who professed love for the Constitution; get it so wrong about abortion??

"White evangelicals in the 1970s did not mobilize against Roe v. Wade, which they considered a Catholic issue. They organized instead to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions, including Bob Jones University. The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society The historical record is clear. In 1968, Christianity Today, the flagship magazine of evangelicalism, organized a conference with the Christian Medical Society -- they concluded: “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. Carl F. H. Henry, the magazine’s founder, affirmed that “a woman’s body is not the domain and property of others,"

The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth

White evangelicals in the 1970s didn’t initially care about abortion. They organized to defend racial segregation in evangelical institutions — and only seized on banning abortion because it was more palatable than their real goal.

www.politico.com

How could someone like the Christian Medical Society get it so wrong?? Did they not know Jesus is against abortion? The same Bible they used to condemn abortion now is the same Bible that existed then...how could they claim abortion is a necessity and permissible? Did they not care about the children? But it gets worse.....

"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."

Again, what Bible were these people looking at?? Abortion is murder and mothers should be put to death for such an abomination....why was there so much ambiguity on this?? No such wishy washy language existed when they were using Biblical justifications to call for executing gays or railing against the evils of desegregation and miscegenation -- why not that same heat for abortion?? but wait, there's more....even Ronald Reagan, the second coming of Jesus himself, signed into law a big pro-abortion bill...was he not a conservative then?? Did he not love Jesus?

"When the issue surfaced in the first months of his governorship, Reagan was unsure how to react. Surprising as it may seem today, in 1967 abortion was not the great public issue that it is today. Reagan later admitted that abortion had been “a subject I’d never given much thought to.”

Reagan’s Darkest Hour | National Review

As president, Ronald Reagan was an unflagging champion of unborn human life. “Today there is a wound in our national conscience,” Reagan told a joint session of Congress in his 1986 State of the Un…

www.nationalreview.com

How could he have never given much thought to it, but then signed the most liberal pro-abortion bill in the country that year? Hell, even the great superhero Libertarian Conservative, Ayn Rand said this about abortion.....

View attachment 662093


I mean I know she is an Atheist and you right-wingers give her a pass because she hated black folks and other shit as much as you did -- but even for a Jesus-hating atheist, this is pretty twisted stuff from her.....how did these Conservatives get it all wrong -- and then all suddenly in the span of a few years -- suddenly launch a crusade against abortion and women's health rights??

Oh, I remember......racism......

"After several decades of research, I can state without fear of contradiction that evangelicals mobilized politically in the 1970s not, as commonly supposed, in opposition to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973, but rather in defense of racial segregation at Bob Jones University and at all-white “segregation academies,” many of them church-sponsored. The durability of what I call the abortion myth, the fiction that opposition to legalized abortion was the catalyst of their movement, can be attributed to the founders of the Religious Right themselves."

Column: Race, Reagan and the rise of the Religious Right

The overwhelming white evangelical support for Donald Trump is a puzzle that will occupy historians for generations. How can the Religious Right, a movement that trumpets its fidelity to “family values,” throw its support to a vulgar, thrice-married...

www.vnews.com

Like how Ronald Reagan campaigned in 1980 to defend the right of universities like Bob Jones to racially segregate....I guess that is how Bob Jones was able to get away with banning interracial dating on their campus all the way up to the year 2000....Or how the founder of the Religious Right, Paul Weyrich was pissed that the IRS were planning to rescind the tax-exempt statuses of religious institutions that instituted segregation....in the papers he wrote; he essentially admitted: "Now, Falwell and other leaders of the Religious Right had a “respectable” issue, opposition to abortion, one that would energize white evangelicals — and, not incidentally, divert attention from the real origins of "our movement."

Paul M. Weyrich papers - Archives West

Archives West provides access to descriptions of primary sources in the western United States, including correspondence, diaries, and photographs. Digital reproductions of primary sources are available in some cases. Archives West was formerly known as the Northwest Digital Archives (NWDA).

archiveswest.orbiscascade.org

So once abortion is banned at the federal level, because that is definitely next -- what more red meat can you offer to the rabid evangelical base?? Because the beast will have to be fed.....can't be abortion anymore....Contraceptives?? Yea, that may hold them off for a moment....but sooner or later, you are going to have to throw them a bone and do something about their first love....segregation....at least bring back the whole separate but equal doctrine and use that to get your segregation rocks off....it's definitely coming...people like me have been right about the religious right so far.....even when so-called "small government Conservatives" were assuring us "relax bro, you are just overreacting, no one is asking for that" -- when it came to banning abortion, same-sex marriages, epealing Lawrence v Texas; and ultimately attacking the very concept of the 14th amendment....oh, but when that pendulum swings back in the other direction....I doubt many of the reactionary right-wingers will be able to handle it...they are far too fragile to deal with an ounce of the oppression they love seeing inflicted on others...because for a right-winger, equality feels like oppression...always have been....

there is so much conflation and blurring of real events and mislabeling of constituents and groups of the time that the author(s) didn't even feel the need to be clever, as the target audience is obviously socially educated/trained [thereby negating the need to be clever] and would have no clue that these events are contrived [i.e. it is what passes for journalism in this age of mindless journalism]...
...the worst thing you could do to me right now is demand I explain to you what is wrong with such gruel...I would have to hire a staff

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Baptism is a show of faith to follow in Christ’s footsteps. It has no bearing on your salvation. That said how would you baptize a fetus even if you wanted to?

Practice What You Preach

Proof that it is not a baby and that nobody really believes it is a baby is how stupid it would look to splash holy water on a pregnant woman's belly. Yet, according to Church doctrine, it has to be done so that, if the fetus doesn't survive, the baby would go to heaven instead of Limbo.

 

[Couchpotato]

Practice What You Preach

Proof that it is not a baby and that nobody really believes it is a baby is how stupid it would look to splash holy water on a pregnant woman's belly. Yet, according to Church doctrine, it has to be done so that, if the fetus doesn't survive, the baby would go to heaven instead of Limbo.

Catholic Church maybe. Not the entirety of the Christian faith.