Announcement

Collapse

Pro-Life Activism 301 Guidelines

This area is for pro-life activists to discuss issues related to abortion. It is NOT a debate area, and it is not OK for pro-choice activists to post here.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

SBC (probably accidentally) throws the pro-life movement under the bus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sparko
    replied
    Just a reminder, this is not a debate area.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Strategically, I disagree with you. Placating culture hasn't ever really worked for the prolife movement. Confronting culture and trying to influence culture have. Now is a perfect time to draw a line in the sand - heck, it seems to be in vogue. Allowing exceptions that seemed legit has historically resulted in 'exceptions' becoming the norm - and circumstances that could have been dealt with in individual cases in court (incest/rape) or demonstrably unsalvageable ( unviable pregnancy) became excuses to circumvent every rational restriction. The only way forward now is to stop allowing exceptions and force the extremely rare cases back into the courts.
    This resolution is not about simply taking a different tack; it is about anathematizing any pro-lifer who thinks differently and outright stating that they are wicked. The group associated with this resolution, in addition to its picketing of conservative churches, publicly accuses mainstream pro-life advocates of secretly being pro-choice because of a difference in tactics. The 2015 Hunter-Cunningham debate as mentioned in the op-ed should have been the nail in this movement's coffin.

    This is not about allowing for exceptions for rape/etc. The pro-life advocates that this group specifically decries actively argue against allowing these exceptions. This is about accepting any restriction that one can feasibly get into law in the short term.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Um, so how do they define abortion? Not being snarky, but medical termination done because both cannot survive has historically not been part of the abortion definition. Just making sure this isn't the route they are taking.

    Not politically viable now doesn't make it a poor goal. When I was a kid gun control in any meaningful sense was a pipe dream - but we did get there. In my opinion, the gun abolition movement masquerading as gun control will end up destroying what we did accomplish. I am not personally in favor of abolition - but only grudgingly not. So I rather lament the movement because of its destructive potential - but if they truly believe in it (which I doubt but staying on topic) then they are not wrong to try.

    Who knows? Maybe there will be a couple fewer rubber tree plants.

    Strategically, I disagree with you. Placating culture hasn't ever really worked for the prolife movement. Confronting culture and trying to influence culture have. Now is a perfect time to draw a line in the sand - heck, it seems to be in vogue. Allowing exceptions that seemed legit has historically resulted in 'exceptions' becoming the norm - and circumstances that could have been dealt with in individual cases in court (incest/rape) or demonstrably unsalvageable ( unviable pregnancy) became excuses to circumvent every rational restriction. The only way forward now is to stop allowing exceptions and force the extremely rare cases back into the courts.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    I think you may find some people here have a similar view. (I am not one of them. I favor exceptions only in the extremely rare cases where the physical life of the mother is in imminent jeopardy.)
    I could see how the direct approach might work in some locations (after all, locales have been thumbing their noses at federal marijuana law for awhile, but the federal government, certainly this current immigration, would likely see this as a cause worth fighting, whereas few people care enough to actively fight for the enforcement of pot laws), but it isn't going to work everywhere.

    I am of two minds about the approach of declaring "sanctuary cities for the unborn", given that some of the same people who support it have been declaring the lawlessness of doing it on the issue of immigration. I might have less a problem with it if the same wording wasn't borrowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    I think you may find some people here have a similar view. (I am not one of them. I favor exceptions only in the extremely rare cases where the physical life of the mother is in imminent jeopardy.)

    Leave a comment:


  • SBC (probably accidentally) throws the pro-life movement under the bus

    The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution calling for the “immediate abolition of abortion without exception or compromise.” Sounds good... except not actually. This resolution was pushed by the "abolitionist" movement, which is basically the Westboro Baptist Church of the pro-life movement. They are known for picketing churches (including John MacArthur's church) that they believe to not be sufficiently pro-life, and vocally argue that any efforts that try to limit abortion are evil because they supposedly implicitly allow for abortion. The only thing they will allow for are laws that immediately ban abortion, regardless of how unlikely these are to be passed (or not struck down by courts immediately). The wording of the resolution also attacks any efforts to limit abortion. This is friendly fire.

    I really believe that most SBC voters who approved this resolution were not aware of this background and had good intentions.

    Here is an opinion article on it from two leading pro-life activists:

    https://townhall.com/columnists/marc...phets-n2591417

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by The Melody Maker, 09-06-2021, 10:22 PM
3 responses
39 views
3 likes
Last Post Christianbookworm  
Working...
X