The Republicans have done a lot with abortion
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Breaking News..........Russian Proposal
- Thread starter saturneptune
- Start date
saturneptune
New Member
Rev,
I will agree with you in this aspect. The Republicans put the right to life in their party plank in 1972. The Republicans generally support right to life and family values every four years during the campaign season. However, numbers are cold as ice, and they reveal the abortion rate remained relatively unchanged from 1973 until now. That spans Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Which is more evil, for the Democrats to put forth a pro choice agenda, or for the Republicans to shout from the mountain tops about family values and right to life, then do nothing about it. There have been periods of time when there was no excuse, a Republican President, Republican Congress, and a conservative Supreme Court. In addition, the state legislatures were mostly conservative during those periods of time.
One of the greatest influences a President can have on the issue is to appoint a conservative Supreme Court nominee. George Bush the First nominated David Suitor, who turned out to be one of the most liberal members at the time. He also nominated Clarence Thomas. Although his morality makes Kennedy look like a saint, he did stay fairly conservative.
Credit where credit is due goes to George Bush the Second for his two nominees, Alito and Roberts, who are strong and consistent conservatives.
I will agree with you in this aspect. The Republicans put the right to life in their party plank in 1972. The Republicans generally support right to life and family values every four years during the campaign season. However, numbers are cold as ice, and they reveal the abortion rate remained relatively unchanged from 1973 until now. That spans Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
Which is more evil, for the Democrats to put forth a pro choice agenda, or for the Republicans to shout from the mountain tops about family values and right to life, then do nothing about it. There have been periods of time when there was no excuse, a Republican President, Republican Congress, and a conservative Supreme Court. In addition, the state legislatures were mostly conservative during those periods of time.
One of the greatest influences a President can have on the issue is to appoint a conservative Supreme Court nominee. George Bush the First nominated David Suitor, who turned out to be one of the most liberal members at the time. He also nominated Clarence Thomas. Although his morality makes Kennedy look like a saint, he did stay fairly conservative.
Credit where credit is due goes to George Bush the Second for his two nominees, Alito and Roberts, who are strong and consistent conservatives.
The Republicans have done something about for years now.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
The Republicans have rattled sabers and used abortion to curry political favor. But as SN noted, it's been the same old same old since 1973.
The people in leadership in the old days used to be the people in leadership in the Church and we could hold them accountable for their values or lack thereof.
Now we are too quick to compromise because the choices suck and someone is the best option of available options.
Enough of these folks who feel they have to play politics and compromise. We are the Bride of a HOLY God . Our choices should be trending toward HOLINESS and absolute truth that does not compromise rather than towards they meet 6 out of 10 of my Christian requirements and that's more than the other guy..
My pastor said it this past weekend: What we do in moderation today, the next generation will do in excess.
Wouldn't it be something if we set them up for an excess of HOLINESS?
The people in leadership in the old days used to be the people in leadership in the Church and we could hold them accountable for their values or lack thereof.
Now we are too quick to compromise because the choices suck and someone is the best option of available options.
Enough of these folks who feel they have to play politics and compromise. We are the Bride of a HOLY God . Our choices should be trending toward HOLINESS and absolute truth that does not compromise rather than towards they meet 6 out of 10 of my Christian requirements and that's more than the other guy..
My pastor said it this past weekend: What we do in moderation today, the next generation will do in excess.
Wouldn't it be something if we set them up for an excess of HOLINESS?
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Were we to insist on 10 out of 10 this day and age, we would eliminate ourselves from the political process, and thus eliminate ourselves from having a voice, so that:
" ... when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." (Martin Niemöller)
Zaac
Well-Known Member
There's not much difference between no voice and a voice that compromises on every other thing.
But I say again, politics in the manner that the Church has attempted to use it, has become somewhat the antithesis of what a Christian is supposed to be.
If your voice appears to be absent love because you're more caught up on an issue rather than loving people and pointing them towards Christ with that platform, perhaps it's best to not be heard from that platform?
saturneptune
New Member
I have found over the years a mixed result from local churches getting involved in politics of the world. For example, it might be said that the local churches should let their voice be heard when an alcohol or lottery issue comes around, as they always do. What I have found is, the louder the church speaks, the more voters get out to vote the opposite way, and more times than not we end up losing. Do you have any thoughts about this Catch 22?
Even GW Bush, who started two meaningless wars, went to Congress first. Get your facts straight.
saturneptune
New Member
He went to Congress yes, but he did not follow the Constitution, which requires a declaration of war by Congress. There is a reason for that.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride: "You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means."
A declaration of war automatically brings into effect a number of statutes that confer special powers on the President and the Executive Branch, especially concerning measures that have domestic effect. A declaration, for instance, activates statutes that empower the President to interdict all trade with the enemy, order manufacturing plants to produce armaments and seize them if they refuse, control transportation systems in order to give the military priority use, and command communications systems to give priority to the military. A declaration triggers the Alien Enemy Act, which gives the President substantial discretionary authority over nationals of an enemy state who are in the United States.
It activates special authorities to use electronic surveillance for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information without a court order under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It automatically extends enlistments in the armed forces until the end of the war, can make the Coast Guard part of the Navy, gives the President substantial discretion over the appointment and reappointment of commanders, and allows the military priority use of the natural resources on the public lands and the continental shelf.
Now I ask you, do you want that to happen every time we take military action of some sort? The reality is, despite literally hundreds of uses of military force in the course of U.S. history, Congress has only declared war on five occasions:
- In 1812 against Great Britain (War of 1812)
- In 1846 against Mexico (Mexican-American War)
- In 1898 against Spain (Spanish-American War)
- In 1917 against Germany and Austria-Hungary (World War I)
- In 1941 against Japan, Germany, Italy; in 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania (World War II)
By contrast, this link will provide you with a Google books copy of a report for the Library of Congress by national defense specialist Richard Grimmett, detailing literally hundreds of undeclared-war military actions by the U.S. from John Adams to George W. Bush.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ev...ates Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2004&f=false
The Constitution does not forbid military action without a declaration of war. A declaration of war provides special powers to the president that very few military actions require.
Last edited by a moderator:
poncho
Well-Known Member
"But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people -- who do not profit."
Major General Smedley Butler 1935
And now a word from the president. 1961
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
"But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men -- men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda." SDB
Now a word from a foreign policy expert. “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” Henry Kissinger
A few words from another foreign policy expert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people -- who do not profit."
Major General Smedley Butler 1935
And now a word from the president. 1961
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
"But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men -- men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.
Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda." SDB
Now a word from a foreign policy expert. “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” Henry Kissinger
A few words from another foreign policy expert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kmUS--QCYY
Last edited by a moderator:
saturneptune
New Member
That is a very insightful post. Yes, I am aware that a Declaration of War gives powers to the President, which, by the way, was granted through legislation. And yes, the Constitution does not forbid military action outside of war, neither does it forbid establishing a Department of Martian Cultural Exchanges. The purpose of the declaration was to have us think long and hard about sacrificing lives and tax dollars.
As should be obvious, not all non declared war military actions are equal. There is a difference between the campaign in Croatia that dropped a few bombs, and the one in Iraq, the toppled a government and lasted over ten years.
I know what ifs are make no difference, except to illustrate a point. So, imagine we never went into Iraq, and it is now 2013. What would be different besides 4000 husbands, fathers, and sons still alive and a lot less debt? If we had never entered Vietnam, what would be different today, except 58,000 fathers, sons, and husbands still alive? Is it not still a Communist government?
I will agree with you on this point, the precision military campaigns that we have had, quick victory and quick exit, have been beneficial. One is the Gulf War, where you served. Panama comes to mind. Then there are the ones that did not go so well such as the attempted rescue of the Iranian hostages, Somalia, and the Marine detachment in Lebanon.
A lot of the reason for the doubt of the American people now, besides being sick of war in general, is the total lack of leadership from the White House and the Congress, and that includes both sides.
Really? I think they've done almost nothing. Why didn't they lead an effort to change the constitution by getting the required votes in the state assemblies? The reason is if they ever really did anything about abortion they would lose one of their major ways to hold onto the fundamentalist Christian vote. They've played pure politics with this important issue.