O-Trap;1833927 wrote:Interestingly, early on, the church took a contemporarily liberal view of abortion. Baptists, in particular, were generally pro-choice.

Big if true.

sleeper;1833971 wrote:Big if true.

Piece run in The Baptist Press (the Southern Baptist Convention's wire service):

===================================================
High Court Holds Abortion To Be ‘A right of Privacy’
By W. Barry Garrett
January 31, 1973


The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision that overturned a Texas law which denied a woman the right of abortion except to save her life, has advanced the cause of religious liberty, human equality and justice. At the same time ‘the court struck down a Georgia law that imposed unconstitutional procedures, in getting medical approval for an abortion…

The two decisions raise numerous other questions which Baptists and others should seek to understand. Among them:

Question: Was this a Warren type or “liberal” Supreme Court that rendered the decision?

Answer: No. This was a “strict constructionist” court, most of whose members have been appointed by President Nixon.

Question: Did the Supreme Court violate religious propriety by its abortion decision?

Answer: The Roman Catholic hierarchy insists that the Supreme Court blundered by making an immoral, anti-religious and unjustified decision. It has vowed to continue the fight against relaxed abortion laws.

However, most other religious bodies and leaders, who have expressed themselves, approve the decision. Social, welfare and civil rights workers hailed the decision with enthusiasm.

The Supreme Court itself recognized “the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy. It said, however, that “we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus,” the court continued, “the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Thus, it appears to be the view of the court that it decided a constitutional question without attempting answers to the medical, philosophical or theological problems in abortion.

Question: What is the Southern Baptist position on abortion?

Answer: There is no official Southern Baptist position on abortion, or any other such question. Among 12 million Southern Baptists, there are probably 12 million different opinions.

Question: Does the Supreme Court decision on abortion intrude on the religious life of the people?

Answer: No. Religious bodies and religious persons can continue to teach their own particular views to their constituents with all the vigor they desire. People whose conscience forbids abortion are not compelled by law to have abortions. They are free to practice their religion according to the tenets of their personal or corporate faith.

The reverse is also now true since the Supreme Court decision. Those whose conscience or religious convictions are not violated by abortion may not now be forbidden by a religious law to obtain an abortion it they so choose.

In short, if the state laws are now made to conform to the Supreme Court ruling, the decision to obtain an abortion or to bring pregnancy to full term can now be a matter of conscience and deliberate choice rather than one compelled by law.

Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.

Abortion will never be illegal in this country.

We will not go backwards.

sleeper;1834008 wrote:Abortion will never be illegal in this country.

We will not go backwards.

Abortion for what use, though? Abortion for emergencies, death of the baby before birth or for birth control?

CenterBHSFan;1834009 wrote:Abortion for what use, though? Abortion for emergencies, death of the baby before birth or for birth control?

Abortion for any and all uses decided by the patient and her doctor and no one else.

Don't like abortions? Don't have one. Simple.

ppaw1999;1833966 wrote:Leave Sleeper alone. After 8 years of Quaker Oats whining Sleeper is just making things "Fair And Balanced."

Big difference between whining and 'critiquing on behalf of The People'.

Good luck.

sleeper;1834008 wrote:Abortion will never be illegal in this country.

We will not go backwards.

So, infanticide = progress.


How convenient.

QuakerOats;1834027 wrote:Big difference between whining and 'critiquing on behalf of The People'.

Little presumptuous to presume to speak on behalf of "The People," wouldn't you say?

Many voices of The People rang out over the last 8 years; now we may have an actual voice in D.C.


“We are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another — but we are transferring power from Washington D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.”


“January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.”


“For too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”


“For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidised the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military; we’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own; and spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.”

Trump claiming he actually won the popular vote and spending political capital defending this idea with no evidence.

In other news, heard Trump shot the world's 2nd ever 18 on a golf course, tying the record set by Kim Jong Il from North Korea. Tremendous!

O-Trap;1834034 wrote:Little presumptuous to presume to speak on behalf of "The People," wouldn't you say?

As far as I know, I'm a "people" and that dipshit doesn't come close to speaking for me, if that helps!

QuakerOats;1834027 wrote:Big difference between whining and 'critiquing on behalf of The People'.

Good luck.

I thought your incessant whining would decrease after the inauguration.

In the words of Donald himself...WRONG.

Automatik;1834047 wrote:I thought your incessant whining would decrease after the inauguration.

In the words of Donald himself...WRONG.

SAD!

QuakerOats;1834038 wrote:Many voices of The People rang out over the last 8 years; now we may have an actual voice in D.C.


“We are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another — but we are transferring power from Washington D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.”


“January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.”


“For too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential. This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”


“For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidised the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military; we’ve defended other nation’s borders while refusing to defend our own; and spent trillions of dollars overseas while America’s infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.”

And you've decided that you are sufficient to represent everyone deemed "The People?"

And here I thought humility was a virtue.

sleeper;1834008 wrote:Abortion will never be illegal in this country.

We will not go backwards.

If, and/or when, the SCOTUS rules on the issue of when life begins, and with it the fundamental human rights of the unborn, your statement about illegality may not be entirely true. In reference to your "will not go backwards" statement, there are those who believe we already have gone backwards and need to be turned around... much like how the fundamental human rights of those held in slavery were turned around.

I find it interesting that the political party in the 19th century that opposed giving slaves fundamental human rights are the same political party today who refuse to give fundamental human rights to the unborn. My guess is that it will take another Republican president to right the ship again.

O-Trap;1834061 wrote:And you've decided that you are sufficient to represent everyone deemed "The People?"

And here I thought humility was a virtue.

Humility is a virtue. I happen to know a guy, great guy by the way, who is the most humble man on the planet. Truly, very amazing and very humble. So humble in fact that even Hillary Clinton, that nasty women, agrees with me. Everyone agrees with me.

Apple;1834062 wrote:If, and/or when, the SCOTUS rules on the issue of when life begins, and with it the fundamental human rights of the unborn, your statement about illegality may not be entirely true. In reference to your "will not go backwards" statement, there are those who believe we already have gone backwards and need to be turned around... much like how the fundamental human rights of those held in slavery were turned around.

I find it interesting that the political party in the 19th century that opposed giving slaves fundamental human rights are the same political party today who refuse to give fundamental human rights to the unborn. My guess is that it will take another Republican president to right the ship again.

We will not go backwards. Only forwards.

Simple.

sleeper;1834065 wrote:Humility is a virtue. I happen to know a guy, great guy by the way, who is the most humble man on the planet. Truly, very amazing and very humble. So humble in fact that even Hillary Clinton, that nasty women, agrees with me. Everyone agrees with me.

Well-played.

Automatik;1834047 wrote:I thought your incessant whining would decrease after the inauguration.

In the words of Donald himself...WRONG.

Not sure how you get 'whining' out of applauding the president's nominees and first-day actions.

Best

Anyone who isn't on board with your line of thinking you paint broadly as libs. It's lazy. Grow up and stop complaining.

Apple;1834062 wrote:If, and/or when, the SCOTUS rules on the issue of when life begins, and with it the fundamental human rights of the unborn, your statement about illegality may not be entirely true. In reference to your "will not go backwards" statement, there are those who believe we already have gone backwards and need to be turned around... much like how the fundamental human rights of those held in slavery were turned around.

I find it interesting that the political party in the 19th century that opposed giving slaves fundamental human rights are the same political party today who refuse to give fundamental human rights to the unborn. My guess is that it will take another Republican president to right the ship again.

You people have not thought this through. If Human beings at the moment of fertilization have human rights then it follows from your own position that in vitro clinics are morally equal to the holocaust, that every woman who takes oral contraception is knowingly engaging in conduct that can kill humans as the FDA labeling makes clear that it it doesn't necessarily prevent,ovulation and fertilization but implantation - IOW knowingly causing the death of a human being - murder under the Ohio Revised Code.

But, even when pro-lifers introduce these bills they make abortions a 5th degree felony while they talk about murderand innocent life etc. - If the position is morally sincere then my wife who is now an awesome mom and had an abortion is morally equal to Brittany Pilkington in Ohio who suffocated her post-natal children. And this is intuitive. We are more heartbroken at the thought of a still birth vs. an early term miscarriage, etc. - even if we cannot define exactly with logical propositions why this is so.

And really, it gets to how incoherent the. whole debate is because the stated pro-life position is unintentionally absurd in every respect in that it would be impossible and crazy to treat every premature death of an embrionic child with the same protection of the law we afford to all of us human beings walking around. Is the good society one that gives the death penalty to women who abort their pregnancies? Yes, if their unborn embrionic children deserve the same protection of the law as a young boy suffocated by his mother.

If you don't think my wife and mother who have had abortions deserve the same punishment as Britanny Pilkington; If you don't weep for the holocausts that take place in in Vintro clinics, you're implicitly acknowledging that you don't believe an embrionic human being deserves the equal protection of the law with a post-natal human being.

It's like porno, you can't define when the rights of a prenatal human being should vest but the legal system,can do its best to find a workable solution thatvdoes not reduce the theory of natural rights absurdity.

The test that they came up with in roe and then Casey gets the job done.

If we don't think my wife is morally deserving of the death penalty, IMHO it would be for the better if we stopped devoting so much discourse to embryos which will ever feel pain and care about the poor children who have gained greatly under Obamacare who had no choice to be born to deadbeat parents and will exoerience hardship in an indifferent marketplace without intervention of their fellow citizens on their behalf.

While in one sense I get why people are so obsessed with the abortion issue - it touches on the nature of man's place in the universe. I get that.

For all the talk of interference in our politics you'd have to think the freakin Russians gave us the abortion debate because the abortion debate is why we are where we're at today if you ask me - or has played a major role anyways! The GOP was so obsessed with making sure that they got the Supreme Court over the long, impossible dream of making it illegal (but not stopping it at all in an age of drone delivered abortion pills) they were willing to embrace a mentally insane man who embarrasses the United States on a daily basis and is already in violation of the emoluments clause in the constitution they claim to hold in such reverance.

On the other said, being so obsessed with the desire to break that final glass ceiling on a wave of support from women voters on a platform all about abortion, the women's groups and powers-that-be on the American left froze out any challenger for a corrupt and uninspiring Democrat who had already spent the last decade cashing in and peddling influence in many ways because she was simply the most rich, powerful and well-known pro-choice woman.

If you think about it the obsession over the farking abortion debate are the lines drawn in the sand that perpetually prevent people from seeing the reason in the other party. The problem of course is that the GOP's position that a human zygote is morally equal to a crying, breathing baby with frontal lobes is so unworkable as to render the course of human events to move forward without treating mothers and doctors like murders and then the Democrats won't even address their main points and throw them a bone by saying something like "At some point after viability it would be appropriate for the state to constructively recognize the point at which natural rights vest for the child and make her equal with the mother to the point where she could not without just cause (e.g. she might die in child birth) take the child's life) and instead try to suggest that the GOP is in favor of rapists.

No, you get millions willing to hand the keys to a man nobody understands because they don't want to hand them to a corrupt shill propped up by the lobby that acts like all women should care about is the ability to abort a baby mid childbirth while eating a veggie burger.

And people like Scalia want to blame the Supreme Court but the privacy cases were very much in the line of Common Law jurisprudence going back to Founding Father Chief Justice Marshall declaring the doctrine of Judicial Review while delegates to the Constitutional Convention all let it happen.

Who knows, maybe the Russians came up with the convoluted idea of Originalism used to decry the very mainstream common law jurisprudence that interpreted that the Constitution doesn't contain an exhaustive list of all natural rates per the 9th Amendment and that the right to be free in our persons from the government unreasonable searching or seizing our property naturally means that we have the presumption of an expectation and right to privacy?

The abortion debate, the long con of the communists that gave us Hillary and Trump.

BoatShoes;1834141 wrote:While in one sense I get why people are so obsessed with the abortion issue - it touches on the nature of man's place in the universe. I get that.

For all the talk of interference in our politics you'd have to think the freakin Russians gave us the abortion debate because the abortion debate is why we are where we're at today if you ask me - or has played a major role anyways! The GOP was so obsessed with making sure that they got the Supreme Court over the long, impossible dream of making it illegal (but not stopping it at all in an age of drone delivered abortion pills) they were willing to embrace a mentally insane man who embarrasses the United States on a daily basis and is already in violation of the emoluments clause in the constitution they claim to hold in such reverance.

On the other said, being so obsessed with the desire to break that final glass ceiling on a wave of support from women voters on a platform all about abortion, the women's groups and powers-that-be on the American left froze out any challenger for a corrupt and uninspiring Democrat who had already spent the last decade cashing in and peddling influence in many ways because she was simply the most rich, powerful and well-known pro-choice woman.

If you think about it the obsession over the farking abortion debate are the lines drawn in the sand that perpetually prevent people from seeing the reason in the other party. The problem of course is that the GOP's position that a human zygote is morally equal to a crying, breathing baby with frontal lobes is so unworkable as to render the course of human events to move forward without treating mothers and doctors like murders and then the Democrats won't even address their main points and throw them a bone by saying something like "At some point after viability it would be appropriate for the state to constructively recognize the point at which natural rights vest for the child and make her equal with the mother to the point where she could not without just cause (e.g. she might die in child birth) take the child's life) and instead try to suggest that the GOP is in favor of rapists.

No, you get millions willing to hand the keys to a man nobody understands because they don't want to hand them to a corrupt shill propped up by the lobby that acts like all women should care about is the ability to abort a baby mid childbirth while eating a veggie burger.

And people like Scalia want to blame the Supreme Court but the privacy cases were very much in the line of Common Law jurisprudence going back to Founding Father Chief Justice Marshall declaring the doctrine of Judicial Review while delegates to the Constitutional Convention all let it happen.

Who knows, maybe the Russians came up with the convoluted idea of Originalism used to decry the very mainstream common law jurisprudence that interpreted that the Constitution doesn't contain an exhaustive list of all natural rates per the 9th Amendment and that the right to be free in our persons from the government unreasonable searching or seizing our property naturally means that we have the presumption of an expectation and right to privacy?

The abortion debate, the long con of the communists that gave us Hillary and Trump.

You sound depressed dude. We will get through this. Believe me.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/23/foxconn-american-factory-plans-trump

Foxconn is not building the factory citing "unstable government in the US".

Trump, the most anti-business President we ever had.

2020 can't come soon enough.

You quoted something not in the article...keep it up...record day for the DOW and S&P.

Here is a quote though: "[FONT=&quot]“There is such a plan, but it is not a promise. It is a wish,” Foxconn’s chief executive officer, Terry Gou, [/FONT]told reporters[FONT=&quot] on Sunday. Gou added that he wanted guarantees of inexpensive land and electricity before the company made its investment and warned against US protectionism, according to Reuters."[/FONT]