Abortion Is Equal To Murder?

[Cow Poke]

Says the Drama Queen of the personal slight!

So, to be clear, are you opposed to abortion in cases of rape or incest or severe fetal abnormality or carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother despite all these things being agreed upon as recently as the 1971 Southern Baptist Convention joint resolution?

I'm the one who brought this to your attention when I was correcting a bunch of other falsehoods you were spreading.

Let's try this again.... (I'll even bold the part you seem to keep missing)

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.

And, as I stated elsewhere, I was there and voting (hence the "we"), and I voted FOR this resolution.

You really can be dense!

[Tassman]

I'm the one who brought this to your attention when I was correcting a bunch of other falsehoods you were spreading.

Let's try this again.... (I'll even bold the part you seem to keep missing)

personally agree that abortion is acceptable under all these circumstances, yes or no? Answer the question, not just keep repeating the SBC 1971 Resolution.

[Tassman]

There is no moving on with atheistic morality Tass. There is no objectively better or worse - just change.

The same applies to theistic morality. Preexisting values guide interpretation of the Bible i.e. prior beliefs, presuppositions, worldviews, and the like shape biblical interpretation according to changing social values. .

And what happened with the Midianites was in the context of war (the Midianites and Amalekites were constantly attacking the Hebrews).

[Roy]

Can I take it that you personally agree that abortion is acceptable under all these circumstances, yes or no? Answer the question, not just keep repeating the SBC 1971 Resolution.

I think CP answered that in the post you are responding to, when he said he personally voted in favour of it.

[Cow Poke]

This is why just yesterday I again quoted this very passage, dummy,

Calm yourself, Tassman - aren't you the dude who constantly complains that others are using "personal slights"?

LOL "Hypocrisy" is Fox News' Tassman's middle name.

personally agree that abortion is acceptable under all these circumstances, yes or no? Answer the question, not just keep repeating the SBC 1971 Resolution.

Why don't you dial down your ignorant drama queen prosecutorial nonsense and read what I actually wrote? I voted FOR the resolution, the way it's worded. I clearly said that. I still support it.

And, as I stated elsewhere, I was there and voting (hence the "we"), and I voted FOR this resolution.

You really can be dense!

[seer]

That is just stupid, the Midianites and Amalekites were attacking the Hebrews for years.

[Tassman]

Calm yourself, Tassman - aren't you the dude who constantly complains that others are using "personal slights"?

Only when they are demonstrably using personal slights such as accusing those that disagree with you of being "drama queens, which has become your insult du jour...particularly for those who support gay rights.

Why don't you dial down your ignorant drama queen prosecutorial nonsense and read what I actually wrote? I voted FOR the resolution, the way it's worded. I clearly said that. I still support it.

That was 47 years ago. People change. And you were being evasive. Also I have heard Evangelicals opposing abortion in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality and the emotional/psychological condition of the mother, the latter being dismissively cited as "abortion on demand"...including here.

Glad to hear you are not one of those heartless hardliners so lacking in spirit.

[Cow Poke]

Only when they are demonstrably using personal slights such as accusing those that disagree with you of being "drama queens, which has become your insult du jour...particularly for those who support gay rights.

Actually, it's more like those who are being Drama Queens just happen to support gay rights.

It's kinda like when I arrested somebody for stealing a TV -- "the only reason you stopped me is cause I'm black" -- "no, the only reason I stopped you is because you just carried a TV out of a broken store window and were putting it back in the back of your car - you just happen to be black".

That was 47 years ago. People change. And you were being evasive.

I said I voted FOR the resolution and I STILL support it! I wasn't being evasive, you were being stupid.

Also I have heard Evangelicals opposing abortion in cases of rape, incest, fetal abnormality and the emotional/psychological condition of the mother, the latter being dismissively cited as "abortion on demand"...including here.

You really need to take some chill pills.

Glad to hear you are not one of those heartless hardliners so lacking in spirit.

Glad you finally calmed down enough to hear what I was saying.

[Tassman]

It's kinda like when I arrested somebody for stealing a TV -- "the only reason you stopped me is cause I'm black" -- "no, the only reason I stopped you is because you just carried a TV out of a broken store window and were putting it back in the back of your car - you just happen to be black".

Given the number of black celebrities who are stopped by the police (Chris Rock and others cite numerous occasions) it's a reasonable comment.

I said I voted FOR the resolution and I STILL support it! I wasn't being evasive, you were being stupid.

No you were being evasive. Instead of answering the question you kept repeating the SBC Resolution. Several Evangelicals here take exception to that Resolution on the grounds that permitting abortion to women with emotional/psychological conditions is tantamount to allowing "abortion on demand". This of course is a total "no-no" to Evangelicals of the past half century, i.e. since they first discovered that "abortion was murder"

You really need to take some chill pills.

You need to stop being a nasty old man...how old were you exactly when you signed the SBC Resolution in 1971?

[Tassman]

That is just stupid, the Midianites and Amalekites were attacking the Hebrews for years.

The point is that morality has changed over the millennia. Genocide It is no longer acceptable, even in war.

[Teallaura]

Your opinion based on opinions of....



That's a leftist website run by a guy who used to work alternet.org. Sheeeeesh. He's almost as big a bigot as you!

Tass, do yourself a favor - give up the nuttery.

Um, desegregation was already in effect in 1972. The problem with Roe had nothing to do with desegregation. If anything, Roe cracks open the legal door for a return to slavery (why it doesn't scare the blankity blank out of everyone else, I'll never know). Tass's source is less sane than usual.

[Teallaura]

1: Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life.
2: Abortion is not unlawful.
3: Therefore abortion is not murder.

NO. Murder is the unjustified taking of human life.

This is a dangerous and untenable definition you've offered - it literally justifies any government sanctioned killing merely on the grounds that it is lawful - which means any government can kill anyone without moral, ethical or legal ramifications literally by enacting laws that say it's okay to kill people. I assure you, international and Constitutional law do NOT agree with you here.

[kiwimac]

NO. Murder is the unjustified taking of human life.

This is a dangerous and untenable definition you've offered - it literally justifies any government sanctioned killing merely on the grounds that it is lawful - which means any government can kill anyone without moral, ethical or legal ramifications literally by enacting laws that say it's okay to kill people. I assure you, international and Constitutional law do NOT agree with you here.

No.

murder

n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.

See also: first degree murder homicide malice aforethought manslaughter premeditation second degree murder



The People's Law Dictionary by Gerald and Kathleen Hill Publisher Fine Communications

[seer]

No.

Yes, in my life time abortion was illegal. So obviously you would agree with the killing of Jews if it was lawful.

[rogue06]

Yes, in my life time abortion was illegal. So obviously you would agree with the killing of Jews if it was lawful.

Or have no problem slaughtering indigenous people back "in the day" (the last officially sanctioned massacre in Australia for example was in 1928).