Abortion Is Equal To Murder?

[Cow Poke]

He was the bureau chief of 'Baptist Press',

Absolutely false, as already demonstrated.

And he's not the "boss" of the SBC. He's simply a reporter, and a theological liberal expressing his opinion at a time when the SBC conservative resurgence was fully under way.

In FACT, two years PRIOR to that, in our 1971 annual meeting St. Louis, Missouri, we (15,000 of us) passed the following resolution:

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon 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.

[Tassman]

You are REALLY doubling down on ignorance, Tass. No, he was ONE bureau chief of ONE office of the Baptist Press. He worked in the DC office - the HOME office of the SBC is Nashville, not DC. Just a few years later, his predecessor was even denied credentials to attend the annual meeting, because that office was pretty much a rogue office..

There are many such examples, not just one "rogue reporter" as per your selective rewriting of history. It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Conservatives.

"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.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

In short, he's adopting the traditional Jewish view.

[Cow Poke]

There are many such examples, not just one "rogue reporter" as per your selective rewriting of history.

Wait, WHAT??? Proving that you were flat out wrong about "A bureau chief" of ONE of our bureaus is "rewriting history"? You really ARE a dishonest jackass. You were WRONG, Tassman, just as WRONG as you were to accuse your fellow homosexual of being FOR NAMBLA when he was speaking against it.

You just kept posting the same thing over and over, which, if you would have actually read it, would have made you realize how WRONG you were. You get things so terribly wrong, then you double down on it, dig in your heals, then after a long battle, come up with something asinine like "you're rewriting history". That, sir, is a flat out lie. Was I "rewriting history" when I finally got you to see you were WRONG on that NAMBLA thing?

I'm beginnning to think you're EASILY the most morally decrepit poster we have.

It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Conservatives.

It's only relatively recently that the Southern Baptist Convention realized they were ALSO wrong about slavery, as I'll point out with your next example....

"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.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

In short, he's adopting the traditional Jewish view.

W. A. Criswell was ALSO on the wrong side of the slavery issue....

As pastor, Dr. Criswell first came to national attention in 1956 with his fiery sermon in South Carolina that linked the fight against integration with evangelism.

In his remarks, he attacked preachers who supported integration and particularly railed against both the National Council of Churches and the NAACP, calling them “good-for-nothing fellows who are trying to upset all of the things that we love as good old Southern people and as good old Southern Baptists.”

The sermon was so well received that Dr. Criswell was invited to give it again to the South Carolina legislature, which reprinted the speech and distributed it widely, particularly among White Citizen Councils.

There was a backlash in Dallas, where Dr. Criswell faced tart criticism from other prominent Baptist leaders for his views and received hundreds of critical letters from professors and students at his Southern Baptist alma mater, Baylor University.

Please note - the "tart criticism" he got from "other prominent Baptist leaders" was a pretty intense issue at the time.

He (and a number of other Southern Baptist leaders) were just as wrong about abortion as they were about slavery.

[Bill the Cat]

There are many such examples, not just one "rogue reporter" as per your selective rewriting of history. It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Conservatives.

"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.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

In short, he's adopting the traditional Jewish view.

Criswell changed his mind about it. Here are his own words on the topic:

https://www.wacriswell.com/sermon-topic/abortion/

You will hear staunch pro-life words.

[Tassman]

Criswell changed his mind about it. Here are his own words on the topic:

https://www.wacriswell.com/sermon-topic/abortion/

You will hear staunch pro-life words.

That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Christian Conservatives. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion for a variety of reasons. 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.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...origins-107133

[Cow Poke]

That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Christian Conservatives. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion for a variety of reasons. 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.

I swear you must be overdosing on the stupid pills - AGAIN you very dishonestly cite ONLY the portion you want to see, and I had JUST posted the entire Resolution. Let me do it again, and try really hard to read the bolded part.... Heck, I'll even make it bigger and underline part!

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon 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.

After resolving that we work to defend fetal life, we noted some EXCEPTIONS to a ban on abortion. And note that they are pretty restrictive exceptions.

[Roy]

There is nothing known now about the development of fetuses that was not known 45 years ago.

I severely doubt that - not least because MRI scanning isn't that old.

[Cow Poke]

That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that It is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been the litmus test of true Christian Conservatives. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion for a variety of reasons. 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.

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/about/abortion

1971 - Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves;

1974 - Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that we reaffirm the resolution on the subject adopted by the messengers to the St. Louis Southern Baptist Convention meeting in 1971...

1976 - WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons want-only destroys fetal life, dulls our society's moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life, and WHEREAS, Every decision for an abortion, for whatever reason must necessarily involve the decision to terminate the life of an innocent human being.

A clarification, so I'll include the entire resolution

1977 - RESOLVED that this Convention reaffirm the strong stand against abortion adopted by the 1976 Convention, and, in view of some confusion in interpreting part of this resolution we confirm our strong opposition to abortion on demand and all governmental policies and actions which permit this.

The 1976 resolution on abortion is as follows:

WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have historically held a biblical view of the sanctity of human life, and

WHEREAS, Abortion is a very serious moral and spiritual problem of continuing concern to the American people, and

WHEREAS, Christians have a responsibility to deal with all moral and spiritual issues which affect society, including the problems of abortion, and

WHEREAS, The practice of abortion for selfish non-therapeutic reasons wantonly destroys fetal life, dulls our society's moral sensitivity, and leads to a cheapening of all human life.

Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June, 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and

Be it further RESOLVED, that we call on Southern Baptists and all citizens of the nation to work to change those attitudes and conditions which encourage many people to turn to abortion as a means of birth control, and

Be it further RESOLVED, that in the best interest of our society, we reject any indiscriminate attitude toward abortion, as contrary to the biblical view, and

Be it further RESOLVED, that we also affirm our conviction about the limited role of government in dealing with matters relating to abortion, and support the right of expectant mothers to the full range of medical services and personal counseling for the preservation of life and health.)

1978 - Be it therefore RESOLVED, that we the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Atlanta in June 1978, reaffirm the resolution passed by the 1977 Kansas City Southern Baptist Convention.

1979 - Therefore be it RESOLVED, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Norfolk in June, 1976 reaffirm the biblical sacredness and dignity of all human life, including fetal life, and

And, pretty much 1980, 1982, 1984, 1987, 1989, 1991...


You just keep being so stubbornly and thoroughly WRONG.

[Tassman]

I severely doubt that - not least because MRI scanning isn't that old.

MRI scans help diagnose disease or damage, but I doubt that it would have told us anything about a normal fetus in the womb that wasn't already known.

[Tassman]

I swear you must be overdosing on the stupid pills - AGAIN you very dishonestly cite ONLY the portion you want to see, and I had JUST posted the entire Resolution. Let me do it again, and try really hard to read the bolded part.... Heck, I'll even make it bigger and underline part!

WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and

WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and

WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;

Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon 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.

After resolving that we work to defend fetal life, we noted some EXCEPTIONS to a ban on abortion. And note that they are pretty restrictive exceptions.

That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that it is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been a major issue and the test of true Christian Conservative values. The standard Evangelical narrative that Evangelicals were so morally outraged by Roe v Wade that they resolved to do all in their power to overturn it is fake news. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion.

“What galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.

In other words, as Randall Balmer has succinctly put it: “the religious right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination.”

Only after the movement was underway did it begin advocacy on abortion. It did so, in large part, based on highly dubious arguments advanced by the popular writer Francis Schaeffer.”

http://religiondispatches.org/the-no...life-movement/

In short, Evangelical opposition to abortion is as much for political power as an appeal to the high moral ground. But, then, this is why they voted for Trump.

[Cow Poke]

That may well be.

It is. So you were clearly wrong. Again. As is the rest of your post, which I'll ignore.

[carpedm9587]

That may well be. But it does not alter the fact that it is only relatively recently that the Evangelical anti-abortion stance has been a major issue and the test of true Christian Conservative values. The standard Evangelical narrative that Evangelicals were so morally outraged by Roe v Wade that they resolved to do all in their power to overturn it is fake news. Both before and for several years after Roe v Wade, Evangelicals were very tolerant of abortion.

“What galvanized the Christian community was not abortion, school prayer, or the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]. I am living witness to that because I was trying to get those people interested in those issues and I utterly failed. What changed their minds was Jimmy Carter’s intervention against the Christian schools, trying to deny them tax-exempt status on the basis of so-called de facto segregation.

In other words, as Randall Balmer has succinctly put it: “the religious right of the late twentieth century organized to perpetuate racial discrimination.”

Only after the movement was underway did it begin advocacy on abortion. It did so, in large part, based on highly dubious arguments advanced by the popular writer Francis Schaeffer.”

http://religiondispatches.org/the-no...life-movement/

In short, Evangelical opposition to abortion is as much for political power as an appeal to the high moral ground. But, then, this is why they voted for Trump.

I have to say that this does not align with my experience at all. I was an evangelical Christian in my youth, and that was from the early 1970s through the early 1980s - then I became a more progressive Christian. Our community was instantly against abortion when the RvW ruling was handed down in 1973, and immediately got active resisting it. It is also untrue that we had no idea what was in the womb. The same pictures of aborted fetuses (feti?) were being circulated in 1973 as in 2018.

I also think the claim that the evangelical right is focused on perpetuating racial discrimination is way off the edge. Yes, some of the things the right does has the effect of perpetuating some forms of discrimination, and I have certainly noted on more than one occasion that many on the right are too quick to deny that racism continues to be a problem in our world. But I have no reason to believe that perpetuating racism is the intentional focus of the right.

A good example is the entire VoterID issue. There is no doubt that these initiatives impact minorities more than Caucasians. However, the intent of the right is to diminish voter turnout by the left in order to be more successful at the voting booth. The impact on minorities is (as best I can tell) an unintended side-effect (well, with the exception of the situation in North Carolina).

I think your post goes WAY too far....

[element771]

A good example is the entire VoterID issue. There is no doubt that these initiatives impact minorities more than Caucasians. However, the intent of the right is to diminish voter turnout by the left in order to be more successful at the voting booth. The impact on minorities is (as best I can tell) an unintended side-effect (well, with the exception of the situation in North Carolina).

There have actually been several Republicans that have specifically said their intent was to suppress the minority vote.

However, this is where it is hard to separate a racist agenda versus a tactic to suppress the minority vote because they typically vote for Dems.

[rogue06]

I have to say that this does not align with my experience at all. I was an evangelical Christian in my youth, and that was from the early 1970s through the early 1980s - then I became a more progressive Christian. Our community was instantly against abortion when the RvW ruling was handed down in 1973, and immediately got active resisting it. It is also untrue that we had no idea what was in the womb. The same pictures of aborted fetuses (feti?) were being circulated in 1973 as in 2018.

I also think the claim that the evangelical right is focused on perpetuating racial discrimination is way off the edge. Yes, some of the things the right does has the effect of perpetuating some forms of discrimination, and I have certainly noted on more than one occasion that many on the right are too quick to deny that racism continues to be a problem in our world. But I have no reason to believe that perpetuating racism is the intentional focus of the right.

A good example is the entire VoterID issue. There is no doubt that these initiatives impact minorities more than Caucasians. However, the intent of the right is to diminish voter turnout by the left in order to be more successful at the voting booth. The impact on minorities is (as best I can tell) an unintended side-effect (well, with the exception of the situation in North Carolina).

I think your post goes WAY too far....

One thing to keep in mind is that there has always been a strain in the pro-abortion side which has seen abortion as a viable way of lowering the birth rate from "undesirables"

Abortion.jpg

[carpedm9587]

There have actually been several Republicans that have specifically said their intent was to suppress the minority vote.

However, this is where it is hard to separate a racist agenda versus a tactic to suppress the minority vote because they typically vote for Dems.

Agreed.