TX abortion law

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
I'm asking because I want to know how many truly know the answer, or they think they know.
You could say I'm making a point about propaganda.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You keep thinking in terms of propaganda to support your position. I'll keep posting data to support my position. Just calling it illegal is a way to harm women. Policy matters. Propaganda doesn't. I'll say it again, if the money and resources that have been put into attempting to make it illegal had been placed into trying to limit abortions there would have been far fewer abortions. I cannot comprehend how someone can feel that abortion is murder yet support policy that causes more of them to occur than if they supported other policy that lowers the rate. Those are just simple facts. My side is for fewer abortions. Your side is for illegal abortion which causes more. The data shows that the real push of making it illegal is control of women, not reducing abortion.

View attachment 92017

View attachment 92019
View attachment 92018
I will give you my actual opinion, since I haven't really done it in this thread.
I personally believe that abstinence until marriage is good for many reasons, not just protecting from unwanted pregnancy. I believe abortion is murder. 2 cells have come together with DNA from the mother and father, and formed a unique 3rd human being at conception. Will it every be 100% gone? No. I believe that education about abstinence, alternatives to unprotected sex, access to information and resources about adoption. Also support from groups like Stillwater life services that provide health care, parenting education, and material help for mother's in potential crisis situations.
I believe that a multi faceted approach can help reduce abortions.

I believe there are some truly evil people in this world, and ones that want abortion to be legal up to 40 weeks for any reason, without regulation, are some of them. Granted there aren't many of them but they exist and they are trying to influence the next generation with their thoughts on this.

I also believe that many people believe propaganda that all Christians want control, are patriarchal and don't want to help the mother or child at all. Many also have believed the propaganda that coat hangers and real alleys were the way abortions were performed before Roe and that's why the case was brought. Like there weren't abortions medically conducted before that court case, only some evil deathly version done in the dark.

These are my opinions on the subject. As you can see, we aren't as far apart on this as you think. Probably the biggest divide is the line we draw regarding the point at which there is creation of the life that should be protected in the womb.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

snuffy

Calf fries are the original sack lunch.
Staff
A/V Subscriber
Feb 28, 2007
37,636
31,012
1,743
Oklahoma
COMMENTARY
Race, Reagan and the religious right
By Randall Balmer Sep 4, 2021
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/o...Vg94qhBrWCORoBpZSN886dhg9ed-c70JWDGCW4R4WPMiQ
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 casino operator and self-confessed sexual predator?

Fully 81 percent of white evangelicals did so in 2016; only a slightly lesser percentage repeated the folly in 2020 — after four years and, according to the Washington Post, 30,573 false or misleading statements during Trump’s term in the White House.

Any attempt to solve this conundrum — religious right support for Trump — will have to reckon with the role of 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.

Evangelicals overwhelmingly considered abortion a “Catholic issue” until the late 1970s. (Jerry Falwell, to cite one example, by his own admission did not preach his first anti-abortion sermon until February 1978, more than five years after the Roe decision.)

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. In a breathtaking act of rhetorical jujitsu, one notable for both its audacity and its mendacity, these leaders have insisted over the decades that opposition to abortion is what forced them to become political, when in fact they mobilized politically to defend racism. They eventually realized, however, that they needed a different issue to mobilize grassroots evangelicals. Only later, just before the 1980 presidential election, did evangelicals embrace opposition to abortion as a political issue.

The true origins of the religious right, rooted in racism, make the 2016 support for Trump a bit more understandable, if not defensible. Trump entered the national political scene by questioning the legitimacy of the nation’s first African American president. His rhetoric surrounding immigrants and racial minorities speaks for itself.

The 2016 election, therefore, allowed the religious right finally to abandon any pretext that it was a movement devoted to family values. Instead, the religious right circled back to the charter issue behind its formation: racism.

But how do we account for the four decades between the emergence of the religious right and the embrace of Trump? While it is true that both Bush presidents, father and son, supported policies that were not kind to people of color, neither man was openly racist. What is the missing link between, say, Falwell and Trump?

In the course of my research, I’ve come increasingly to see Ronald Reagan as the missing link.

Let’s consider the run-up to the 1980 presidential election. The incumbent, Jimmy Carter, was a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher who spoke openly about being a “born again” Christian. Carter’s tenure in office occurred during a troubled time, no question about it.

But any reasonable appraisal of his tenure would conclude that, even though he was careful to observe the line of separation between church and state, Carter sought to govern in a way consistent with his religious convictions: his pardon of Vietnam-era draft resisters; the emphasis on human rights and both gender and racial equality; the Camp David accords; renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaties as a way to move the nation beyond colonialism. (Carter’s opposition to abortion, by the way, was longer and far more consistent than that of Reagan, who as governor of California in 1967 signed into law the nation’s most liberal abortion law.)

Why would leaders of the religious right choose a divorced and remarried former Hollywood actor over Carter, a fellow evangelical? I’m afraid racism cannot be discounted.

Just as Trump entered the political scene by questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama, Reagan entered California politics in opposition to the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which sought to guarantee equal access to racial minorities. Falwell (although he repented of it later in life) characterized the civil rights movement as “civil wrongs;” Reagan vociferously opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Throughout his political campaigns, Reagan regularly invoked the racially fraught term “law and order.” And who can forget his vile caricature of “welfare queens,” mythical women of color who ostensibly lived the good life on the public dole?

For me, the most damning evidence of Reagan’s racism occurred Aug. 3, 1980, when the Republican nominee chose to open his general election campaign in, of all places, Philadelphia, Miss., at the Neshoba County fair. This is where, 16 summers earlier, members of the Ku Klux Klan, in cooperation with the local sheriff’s office, abducted, tortured and murdered three civil rights workers, burying their bodies in an earthen dam.

Lest anyone miss his meaning on that occasion, Reagan, the master of symbolism, invoked the time-worn segregationist battle cry: “I believe in states’ rights.”

Sadly, the thread that links Donald Trump back to the aborning religious right of the late 1970s is racism. There’s no pretty way to say it. Ronald Reagan was very much in that loop.

Randall Balmer, a resident of Santa Fe, teaches at Dartmouth. His most recent book, released last month, is Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,044
2,288
1,743
COMMENTARY
Race, Reagan and the religious right
By Randall Balmer Sep 4, 2021
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/o...Vg94qhBrWCORoBpZSN886dhg9ed-c70JWDGCW4R4WPMiQ
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 casino operator and self-confessed sexual predator?

Fully 81 percent of white evangelicals did so in 2016; only a slightly lesser percentage repeated the folly in 2020 — after four years and, according to the Washington Post, 30,573 false or misleading statements during Trump’s term in the White House.

Any attempt to solve this conundrum — religious right support for Trump — will have to reckon with the role of 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.

Evangelicals overwhelmingly considered abortion a “Catholic issue” until the late 1970s. (Jerry Falwell, to cite one example, by his own admission did not preach his first anti-abortion sermon until February 1978, more than five years after the Roe decision.)

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. In a breathtaking act of rhetorical jujitsu, one notable for both its audacity and its mendacity, these leaders have insisted over the decades that opposition to abortion is what forced them to become political, when in fact they mobilized politically to defend racism. They eventually realized, however, that they needed a different issue to mobilize grassroots evangelicals. Only later, just before the 1980 presidential election, did evangelicals embrace opposition to abortion as a political issue.

The true origins of the religious right, rooted in racism, make the 2016 support for Trump a bit more understandable, if not defensible. Trump entered the national political scene by questioning the legitimacy of the nation’s first African American president. His rhetoric surrounding immigrants and racial minorities speaks for itself.

The 2016 election, therefore, allowed the religious right finally to abandon any pretext that it was a movement devoted to family values. Instead, the religious right circled back to the charter issue behind its formation: racism.

But how do we account for the four decades between the emergence of the religious right and the embrace of Trump? While it is true that both Bush presidents, father and son, supported policies that were not kind to people of color, neither man was openly racist. What is the missing link between, say, Falwell and Trump?

In the course of my research, I’ve come increasingly to see Ronald Reagan as the missing link.

Let’s consider the run-up to the 1980 presidential election. The incumbent, Jimmy Carter, was a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher who spoke openly about being a “born again” Christian. Carter’s tenure in office occurred during a troubled time, no question about it.

But any reasonable appraisal of his tenure would conclude that, even though he was careful to observe the line of separation between church and state, Carter sought to govern in a way consistent with his religious convictions: his pardon of Vietnam-era draft resisters; the emphasis on human rights and both gender and racial equality; the Camp David accords; renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaties as a way to move the nation beyond colonialism. (Carter’s opposition to abortion, by the way, was longer and far more consistent than that of Reagan, who as governor of California in 1967 signed into law the nation’s most liberal abortion law.)

Why would leaders of the religious right choose a divorced and remarried former Hollywood actor over Carter, a fellow evangelical? I’m afraid racism cannot be discounted.

Just as Trump entered the political scene by questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama, Reagan entered California politics in opposition to the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which sought to guarantee equal access to racial minorities. Falwell (although he repented of it later in life) characterized the civil rights movement as “civil wrongs;” Reagan vociferously opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Throughout his political campaigns, Reagan regularly invoked the racially fraught term “law and order.” And who can forget his vile caricature of “welfare queens,” mythical women of color who ostensibly lived the good life on the public dole?

For me, the most damning evidence of Reagan’s racism occurred Aug. 3, 1980, when the Republican nominee chose to open his general election campaign in, of all places, Philadelphia, Miss., at the Neshoba County fair. This is where, 16 summers earlier, members of the Ku Klux Klan, in cooperation with the local sheriff’s office, abducted, tortured and murdered three civil rights workers, burying their bodies in an earthen dam.

Lest anyone miss his meaning on that occasion, Reagan, the master of symbolism, invoked the time-worn segregationist battle cry: “I believe in states’ rights.”

Sadly, the thread that links Donald Trump back to the aborning religious right of the late 1970s is racism. There’s no pretty way to say it. Ronald Reagan was very much in that loop.

Randall Balmer, a resident of Santa Fe, teaches at Dartmouth. His most recent book, released last month, is Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right.
* racially fraught term “law and order”??
* Ronald Reagan was a racist??
 

ramases2112

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Jun 28, 2008
11,189
5,532
1,743
30
Inside the Basket of Deplorables
www.reddit.com
COMMENTARY
Race, Reagan and the religious right
By Randall Balmer Sep 4, 2021
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/o...Vg94qhBrWCORoBpZSN886dhg9ed-c70JWDGCW4R4WPMiQ
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 casino operator and self-confessed sexual predator?

Fully 81 percent of white evangelicals did so in 2016; only a slightly lesser percentage repeated the folly in 2020 — after four years and, according to the Washington Post, 30,573 false or misleading statements during Trump’s term in the White House.

Any attempt to solve this conundrum — religious right support for Trump — will have to reckon with the role of 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.

Evangelicals overwhelmingly considered abortion a “Catholic issue” until the late 1970s. (Jerry Falwell, to cite one example, by his own admission did not preach his first anti-abortion sermon until February 1978, more than five years after the Roe decision.)

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. In a breathtaking act of rhetorical jujitsu, one notable for both its audacity and its mendacity, these leaders have insisted over the decades that opposition to abortion is what forced them to become political, when in fact they mobilized politically to defend racism. They eventually realized, however, that they needed a different issue to mobilize grassroots evangelicals. Only later, just before the 1980 presidential election, did evangelicals embrace opposition to abortion as a political issue.

The true origins of the religious right, rooted in racism, make the 2016 support for Trump a bit more understandable, if not defensible. Trump entered the national political scene by questioning the legitimacy of the nation’s first African American president. His rhetoric surrounding immigrants and racial minorities speaks for itself.

The 2016 election, therefore, allowed the religious right finally to abandon any pretext that it was a movement devoted to family values. Instead, the religious right circled back to the charter issue behind its formation: racism.

But how do we account for the four decades between the emergence of the religious right and the embrace of Trump? While it is true that both Bush presidents, father and son, supported policies that were not kind to people of color, neither man was openly racist. What is the missing link between, say, Falwell and Trump?

In the course of my research, I’ve come increasingly to see Ronald Reagan as the missing link.

Let’s consider the run-up to the 1980 presidential election. The incumbent, Jimmy Carter, was a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher who spoke openly about being a “born again” Christian. Carter’s tenure in office occurred during a troubled time, no question about it.

But any reasonable appraisal of his tenure would conclude that, even though he was careful to observe the line of separation between church and state, Carter sought to govern in a way consistent with his religious convictions: his pardon of Vietnam-era draft resisters; the emphasis on human rights and both gender and racial equality; the Camp David accords; renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaties as a way to move the nation beyond colonialism. (Carter’s opposition to abortion, by the way, was longer and far more consistent than that of Reagan, who as governor of California in 1967 signed into law the nation’s most liberal abortion law.)

Why would leaders of the religious right choose a divorced and remarried former Hollywood actor over Carter, a fellow evangelical? I’m afraid racism cannot be discounted.

Just as Trump entered the political scene by questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama, Reagan entered California politics in opposition to the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which sought to guarantee equal access to racial minorities. Falwell (although he repented of it later in life) characterized the civil rights movement as “civil wrongs;” Reagan vociferously opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Throughout his political campaigns, Reagan regularly invoked the racially fraught term “law and order.” And who can forget his vile caricature of “welfare queens,” mythical women of color who ostensibly lived the good life on the public dole?

For me, the most damning evidence of Reagan’s racism occurred Aug. 3, 1980, when the Republican nominee chose to open his general election campaign in, of all places, Philadelphia, Miss., at the Neshoba County fair. This is where, 16 summers earlier, members of the Ku Klux Klan, in cooperation with the local sheriff’s office, abducted, tortured and murdered three civil rights workers, burying their bodies in an earthen dam.

Lest anyone miss his meaning on that occasion, Reagan, the master of symbolism, invoked the time-worn segregationist battle cry: “I believe in states’ rights.”

Sadly, the thread that links Donald Trump back to the aborning religious right of the late 1970s is racism. There’s no pretty way to say it. Ronald Reagan was very much in that loop.

Randall Balmer, a resident of Santa Fe, teaches at Dartmouth. His most recent book, released last month, is Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right.
* racially fraught term “law and order”??
* Ronald Reagan was a racist??
It's the tried and true "every one I don't like is Hitler " mantra the left has been going on now for a long time. If you see it for what it is it's honestly such a boring position for them to take at this point. At this point I just roll my eyes at bleeding heart lib post like this.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,582
32,641
1,743
oklahoma city
These are my opinions on the subject. As you can see, we aren't as far apart on this as you think. Probably the biggest divide is the line we draw regarding the point at which there is creation of the life that should be protected in the womb.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
No, the difference is that you feel that making it illegal will "protect" it and I keep posting showing that making it illegal does not protect it. We both want fewer abortions and if "fewer" ever got to zero that's great but we both said that isn't going to happen. So, you want the ones that occur to be illegal. I don't. That has already been shown not to protect anything other than the feelings of people that want it to be illegal. Illegal is the right word, not protection.

As far as back-alley abortions, sure there is some literary license being taken there but if you look at the rate of maternal death and septic abortion where it is legal and not legal the numbers are strikingly different. Making it illegal harms women, that is simply a fact.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
COMMENTARY
Race, Reagan and the religious right
By Randall Balmer Sep 4, 2021
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/o...Vg94qhBrWCORoBpZSN886dhg9ed-c70JWDGCW4R4WPMiQ
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 casino operator and self-confessed sexual predator?

Fully 81 percent of white evangelicals did so in 2016; only a slightly lesser percentage repeated the folly in 2020 — after four years and, according to the Washington Post, 30,573 false or misleading statements during Trump’s term in the White House.

Any attempt to solve this conundrum — religious right support for Trump — will have to reckon with the role of 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.

Evangelicals overwhelmingly considered abortion a “Catholic issue” until the late 1970s. (Jerry Falwell, to cite one example, by his own admission did not preach his first anti-abortion sermon until February 1978, more than five years after the Roe decision.)

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. In a breathtaking act of rhetorical jujitsu, one notable for both its audacity and its mendacity, these leaders have insisted over the decades that opposition to abortion is what forced them to become political, when in fact they mobilized politically to defend racism. They eventually realized, however, that they needed a different issue to mobilize grassroots evangelicals. Only later, just before the 1980 presidential election, did evangelicals embrace opposition to abortion as a political issue.

The true origins of the religious right, rooted in racism, make the 2016 support for Trump a bit more understandable, if not defensible. Trump entered the national political scene by questioning the legitimacy of the nation’s first African American president. His rhetoric surrounding immigrants and racial minorities speaks for itself.

The 2016 election, therefore, allowed the religious right finally to abandon any pretext that it was a movement devoted to family values. Instead, the religious right circled back to the charter issue behind its formation: racism.

But how do we account for the four decades between the emergence of the religious right and the embrace of Trump? While it is true that both Bush presidents, father and son, supported policies that were not kind to people of color, neither man was openly racist. What is the missing link between, say, Falwell and Trump?

In the course of my research, I’ve come increasingly to see Ronald Reagan as the missing link.

Let’s consider the run-up to the 1980 presidential election. The incumbent, Jimmy Carter, was a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher who spoke openly about being a “born again” Christian. Carter’s tenure in office occurred during a troubled time, no question about it.

But any reasonable appraisal of his tenure would conclude that, even though he was careful to observe the line of separation between church and state, Carter sought to govern in a way consistent with his religious convictions: his pardon of Vietnam-era draft resisters; the emphasis on human rights and both gender and racial equality; the Camp David accords; renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaties as a way to move the nation beyond colonialism. (Carter’s opposition to abortion, by the way, was longer and far more consistent than that of Reagan, who as governor of California in 1967 signed into law the nation’s most liberal abortion law.)

Why would leaders of the religious right choose a divorced and remarried former Hollywood actor over Carter, a fellow evangelical? I’m afraid racism cannot be discounted.

Just as Trump entered the political scene by questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama, Reagan entered California politics in opposition to the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which sought to guarantee equal access to racial minorities. Falwell (although he repented of it later in life) characterized the civil rights movement as “civil wrongs;” Reagan vociferously opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Throughout his political campaigns, Reagan regularly invoked the racially fraught term “law and order.” And who can forget his vile caricature of “welfare queens,” mythical women of color who ostensibly lived the good life on the public dole?

For me, the most damning evidence of Reagan’s racism occurred Aug. 3, 1980, when the Republican nominee chose to open his general election campaign in, of all places, Philadelphia, Miss., at the Neshoba County fair. This is where, 16 summers earlier, members of the Ku Klux Klan, in cooperation with the local sheriff’s office, abducted, tortured and murdered three civil rights workers, burying their bodies in an earthen dam.

Lest anyone miss his meaning on that occasion, Reagan, the master of symbolism, invoked the time-worn segregationist battle cry: “I believe in states’ rights.”

Sadly, the thread that links Donald Trump back to the aborning religious right of the late 1970s is racism. There’s no pretty way to say it. Ronald Reagan was very much in that loop.

Randall Balmer, a resident of Santa Fe, teaches at Dartmouth. His most recent book, released last month, is Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right.
That is an article for an echo chamber if I've ever read one. Basically starting from the premise that religious white people are racist and then giving justification for why they're racist based solely on their support for Trump.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
These are my opinions on the subject. As you can see, we aren't as far apart on this as you think. Probably the biggest divide is the line we draw regarding the point at which there is creation of the life that should be protected in the womb.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
No, the difference is that you feel that making it illegal will "protect" it and I keep posting showing that making it illegal does not protect it. We both want fewer abortions and if "fewer" ever got to zero that's great but we both said that isn't going to happen. So, you want the ones that occur to be illegal. I don't. That has already been shown not to protect anything other than the feelings of people that want it to be illegal. Illegal is the right word, not protection.

As far as back-alley abortions, sure there is some literary license being taken there but if you look at the rate of maternal death and septic abortion where it is legal and not legal the numbers are strikingly different. Making it illegal harms women, that is simply a fact.
Basically I want abortions as few as possible, because I believe they are murder of a human life. Why do you want them to be as few as possible?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
It's the tried and true "every one I don't like is Hitler " mantra the left has been going on now for a long time. If you see it for what it is it's honestly such a boring position for them to take at this point. At this point I just roll my eyes at bleeding heart lib post like this.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
Yeah, it’s definitely just the left equating the other side with Hitler. :blink::rolleyes:

Masks/vaccines comparisons to the Holocaust aren’t a thing on the right AT ALL.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
Basically I want abortions as few as possible, because I believe they are murder of a human life. Why do you want them to be as few as possible?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Why does it matter to you why he wants the same thing as you....as long as he does?

If there were things that could be done to decrease murders more than just making them illegal and calling it a day, shouldn’t you be for that too?

If it’s shown that just making murder illegal and calling it a day instead of other actions with a real effect, shouldn’t you be against that?

If you aren’t, it’s not really about protecting innocent lives for you, it’s about control.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
Basically I want abortions as few as possible, because I believe they are murder of a human life. Why do you want them to be as few as possible?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Why does it matter to you why he wants the same thing as you....as long as he does?

If there were things that could be done to decrease murders more than just making them illegal and calling it a day, shouldn’t you be for that too?

If it’s shown that just making murder illegal and calling it a day instead of other actions with a real effect, shouldn’t you be against that?

If you aren’t, it’s not really about protecting innocent lives for you, it’s about control.
But murder is illegal. If he doesn't equate abortion to murder (he said he doesn't think abortion should be illegal), then I truly would like to hear his reasoning. I want to know what motivates him for this. It's always good to understand other people's points of view.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,606
4,397
1,743
Basically I want abortions as few as possible, because I believe they are murder of a human life. Why do you want them to be as few as possible?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Why does it matter to you why he wants the same thing as you....as long as he does?

If there were things that could be done to decrease murders more than just making them illegal and calling it a day, shouldn’t you be for that too?

If it’s shown that just making murder illegal and calling it a day instead of other actions with a real effect, shouldn’t you be against that?

If you aren’t, it’s not really about protecting innocent lives for you, it’s about control.
I also never said I only want it illegal with no other things. I gave my opinions above. I believe there are multitudes of things that can all be done to lower abortions and agree with him on some of them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
7,644
3,547
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
COMMENTARY
Race, Reagan and the religious right
By Randall Balmer Sep 4, 2021
https://www.santafenewmexican.com/o...Vg94qhBrWCORoBpZSN886dhg9ed-c70JWDGCW4R4WPMiQ
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 casino operator and self-confessed sexual predator?

Fully 81 percent of white evangelicals did so in 2016; only a slightly lesser percentage repeated the folly in 2020 — after four years and, according to the Washington Post, 30,573 false or misleading statements during Trump’s term in the White House.

Any attempt to solve this conundrum — religious right support for Trump — will have to reckon with the role of 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.

Evangelicals overwhelmingly considered abortion a “Catholic issue” until the late 1970s. (Jerry Falwell, to cite one example, by his own admission did not preach his first anti-abortion sermon until February 1978, more than five years after the Roe decision.)

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. In a breathtaking act of rhetorical jujitsu, one notable for both its audacity and its mendacity, these leaders have insisted over the decades that opposition to abortion is what forced them to become political, when in fact they mobilized politically to defend racism. They eventually realized, however, that they needed a different issue to mobilize grassroots evangelicals. Only later, just before the 1980 presidential election, did evangelicals embrace opposition to abortion as a political issue.

The true origins of the religious right, rooted in racism, make the 2016 support for Trump a bit more understandable, if not defensible. Trump entered the national political scene by questioning the legitimacy of the nation’s first African American president. His rhetoric surrounding immigrants and racial minorities speaks for itself.

The 2016 election, therefore, allowed the religious right finally to abandon any pretext that it was a movement devoted to family values. Instead, the religious right circled back to the charter issue behind its formation: racism.

But how do we account for the four decades between the emergence of the religious right and the embrace of Trump? While it is true that both Bush presidents, father and son, supported policies that were not kind to people of color, neither man was openly racist. What is the missing link between, say, Falwell and Trump?

In the course of my research, I’ve come increasingly to see Ronald Reagan as the missing link.

Let’s consider the run-up to the 1980 presidential election. The incumbent, Jimmy Carter, was a Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher who spoke openly about being a “born again” Christian. Carter’s tenure in office occurred during a troubled time, no question about it.

But any reasonable appraisal of his tenure would conclude that, even though he was careful to observe the line of separation between church and state, Carter sought to govern in a way consistent with his religious convictions: his pardon of Vietnam-era draft resisters; the emphasis on human rights and both gender and racial equality; the Camp David accords; renegotiation of the Panama Canal treaties as a way to move the nation beyond colonialism. (Carter’s opposition to abortion, by the way, was longer and far more consistent than that of Reagan, who as governor of California in 1967 signed into law the nation’s most liberal abortion law.)

Why would leaders of the religious right choose a divorced and remarried former Hollywood actor over Carter, a fellow evangelical? I’m afraid racism cannot be discounted.

Just as Trump entered the political scene by questioning the legitimacy of Barack Obama, Reagan entered California politics in opposition to the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which sought to guarantee equal access to racial minorities. Falwell (although he repented of it later in life) characterized the civil rights movement as “civil wrongs;” Reagan vociferously opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Throughout his political campaigns, Reagan regularly invoked the racially fraught term “law and order.” And who can forget his vile caricature of “welfare queens,” mythical women of color who ostensibly lived the good life on the public dole?

For me, the most damning evidence of Reagan’s racism occurred Aug. 3, 1980, when the Republican nominee chose to open his general election campaign in, of all places, Philadelphia, Miss., at the Neshoba County fair. This is where, 16 summers earlier, members of the Ku Klux Klan, in cooperation with the local sheriff’s office, abducted, tortured and murdered three civil rights workers, burying their bodies in an earthen dam.

Lest anyone miss his meaning on that occasion, Reagan, the master of symbolism, invoked the time-worn segregationist battle cry: “I believe in states’ rights.”

Sadly, the thread that links Donald Trump back to the aborning religious right of the late 1970s is racism. There’s no pretty way to say it. Ronald Reagan was very much in that loop.

Randall Balmer, a resident of Santa Fe, teaches at Dartmouth. His most recent book, released last month, is Bad Faith: Race 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 casino operator and self-confessed sexual predator?


Because the other option was HRC. The very devil to these same people. It’s not a mystery at all.
 
Jun 18, 2010
17,286
1,901
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
It's the tried and true "every one I don't like is Hitler " mantra the left has been going on now for a long time. If you see it for what it is it's honestly such a boring position for them to take at this point. At this point I just roll my eyes at bleeding heart lib post like this.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk
I don't know about Reagan being racist for giving his opening campaign speech in MS where KKK ruled and murdered without first reading the content of his speech. I agree that if he said he was for state's rights, it wasn't a good place to say that.

I think to evangelicals by far their no. 1 issue is to get all abortion banned. I don't see racism having much to do with it. I dare say evangelicals would even vote for a gay person for president, if he or she also wanted all abortion banned and was the only candidate with that position. However, I think some would choose not to vote at all.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
I also never said I only want it illegal with no other things. I gave my opinions above. I believe there are multitudes of things that can all be done to lower abortions and agree with him on some of them.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
But, as his been shown, making it illegal actually results in an increase in abortions.....so you're not really all that concerned about the lives lost, you're more concerned with social justice signifying your supposed outrage.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
But murder is illegal. If he doesn't equate abortion to murder (he said he doesn't think abortion should be illegal), then I truly would like to hear his reasoning. I want to know what motivates him for this. It's always good to understand other people's points of view.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
He told you.

His interest is in seeing abortions decreased. He believes (and made a pretty compelling argument) "making it illegal" results in an increase in abortions. Ergo, it shouldn't be illegal because it results in more lives lost rather than fewer.
 
May 31, 2007
2,094
486
1,713
OK & CA
But murder is illegal. If he doesn't equate abortion to murder (he said he doesn't think abortion should be illegal), then I truly would like to hear his reasoning. I want to know what motivates him for this. It's always good to understand other people's points of view.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
You have to admit, “I’m for abortion because I’m against it” is pretty funny.
 
Dec 16, 2019
374
135
93
33
Stillwater
It's not the women I'm around. You obviously think more highly of some of the extreme leftists than is the truth. Unfortunately if you do a little hunting on TikTok and Twitter, you'll find that depravity does exist and these women are part of it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
I wouldn't use TikTok or Twitter for any examples, especially creditable ones, well fortunately the exteme leftists are a minority.
 
Sep 22, 2011
4,239
2,954
1,743
34
You have to admit, “I’m for abortion because I’m against it” is pretty funny.
I am for making abortion as rare, safe and psychologically harmless as societally possible, none of which are served by making it illegal. What we need to do is find a way to keep young poor girls from getting pregnant. Forcing people to have babies that they don't want does nothing but feed the cycle of poverty and despair that we have now