Satire! Woot!

Ekklesian said:
Instead of just imprisonment and forced labor, what if slavery meant that the disabled slaves or those reaching the age of, say 40, slaves would be shot, or burned in a furnace, or gassed. (Something like this would be a necessary element to equate the institution of slavery to the abortion industry).

Would would you say Turner or Brown had gone too far?
Click to expand...
You may argue that they did what they felt they needed to do but they did so outside of the umbrella of a lawful government therefore acted unlawfully and were subject to the penalties of the temporal government to which they were subject. We say the very same thing regarding Dietrich Bonnhoffer today, right? Most Evangelical Christians see Bonnhoffer as a hero as many say the same of Nat Turner and John Brown but one may also argue that each of these violated the biblical principles of Romans 13 so the next question to ask is whether God sees these actions to be heroic or sinful?

We speak of Roeder but how about the actions of Paul Jennings Hill who famously told the jurists in his trial to "Mix my blood with the blood of the unborn?" His actions were very deliberate in the killing of an abortionist and his body guard and after he accomplished this, he set his shotgun on the ground and waited for law enforcement authorities to come and arrest him. He did what he felt he needed to do but also acknowledged that there were rightful penalties for his actions. Ask yourself whether his actions helped or hindered the Pro-Life cause. I would have to argue the latter as the abortion rights people were able to portray peaceful anti-abortion protesters as ruthless vigilantes and actually emboldened these baby murderers! What do you think would've happened if many other anti-abortionists followed the examples of Roeder and Hill? I believe that our government as well as the general populace would see anti-abortionists as "Domestic Terrorists" and subject to arrest and imprisonment!

Here in Texas during the Civil War, the "Hill Country Germans" were pro-union, anti-slavery and openly objected to being conscripted to fight for the Confederacy. Martial law was declared and many were persecuted and imprisoned. A group men made plans to flee into Mexico, and join up with the Union forces which were then in New Orleans. They were overtaken at the Nueces River and after a short battle, they were all rounded up and executed on the spot. How should we regard this group of men: as heroes or as traitors? It depends upon whether you are a Unionist or a Confederate right? What is clear though is that they made their choice and committed themselves to it.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
You may argue that they did what they felt they needed to do but they did so outside of the umbrella of a lawful government therefore acted unlawfully and were subject to the penalties of the temporal government to which they were subject.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that. I was asking what you would think of the actions of Brown and Turner if slavery were a systematic execution.
 
Ransom said:
What if, instead of murdering abortionists, Roeder was defending America from killer robots from the future? Would you see his act any differently?

(I can arbitrarily move the goalposts, too, if that's what you like.)
Click to expand...
You're saying that abortion isn't an American holocaust?
 
For the record, I haven't expressed my opionion about Roeder and his actions. Don't presume I think he was justified.
 
Baptist Renegade said:
We say the very same thing regarding Dietrich Bonnhoffer today, right? Most Evangelical Christians see Bonnhoffer as a hero as many say the same of Nat Turner and John Brown but one may also argue that each of these violated the biblical principles of Romans 13 so the next question to ask is whether God sees these actions to be heroic or sinful?
Click to expand...
You've touched on a number issues.

I'm not read up on Bonnhoffer. I just have the general knowledge that he was a nonviolent yet vocal opponent of Nazism and their genocide and was executed under trumped up charges.

But it's interesting that you bring him up. What about the average German citizen, condemned in the court of public opinion for not mounting an insurrection, though undeniably futile and suicidal, against the Nazis and their death camps?

What of Moses' slaying of the Egyptian that was abusing the Hebrew? I'm certain no one here justifies it, but few condemn the act. He was 'passionate for his people.'
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I think the conversation has progressed far enough to establish the fact that few, if any, despite their rhetoric, have the same opinion of the personhood of the born and the personhood unborn.

The violence of slavery and abortion are not the same things. They're not even close. Slavery is brought into the argument by prolifers, because of the arguments made by proabortionists against the personhood of the unborn. Slaves weren't persons before the law either. But that argument is a two-edged sword.

Why would one feel inclined to intervene with deadly force if necessary in the urgent circumstance of a child who is being severely abused when it's outside the womb, but not when it's inside the womb, and they know it's being carried by the mother to be killed?

Because at heart, one entertains differing notions of the level of personhood of the unborn and the born.

That's what I'm getting at.

This post is not to be construed as an argument to start kidnapping women on their way to Planned Parenthood. I'm just establishing the fact most of us, if not all, do not look at the born and the unborn as equal persons.
 
Ekklesian said:
You're saying that abortion isn't an American holocaust?
Click to expand...

I'm saying it's impossible to carry on a serious ethical discussion with someone who pogo-sticks from one hypothetical scenario to another with every post, seemingly because he doesn't like the answers he's getting.
 
Ekklesian said:
Actually, Trump's nominations to the Supreme Court were anything but politically expedient. How did his court's overturning Roe v Wade help solidify his 'power?'
Click to expand...

His nominations were exactly what was expected of a Republican President.
Respected judges with a history of ‘conservative decisions’.
 
subllibrm said:
Which is why I find attacking PBS/NPR while ignoring the federal financing of PP to be the truest evidence that he has never cared about the issue of abortion. It has been stated here many times that it is an incremental battle and we should be pleased, maybe even satisfied, with the overturning of Roe. I can't imagine an easier incremental step than to quit paying for abortions. But here we are making excuses for him ignoring such low hanging fruit.

Federal funding of Planned Parenthood could end tomorrow if the president was to make an actual pro life decision.

Remember how I have been told that it isn't about his morality but his policies. This policy (in)decision can't be defended on any moral grounds. For those unable to speak any ill of him or his policies, they are left only with the option of making excuses for him.
Click to expand...
Trump cannot unilaterally defund PP without Congress:
  • Congressional Authority over Funding: The power of the purse resides with Congress, meaning they are responsible for appropriating funds for federal programs, including those related to healthcare and family planning.
  • Planned Parenthood Funding: Planned Parenthood receives federal funding through programs like Title X, which supports family planning services, and Medicaid, which provides healthcare access to low-income individuals.
  • Presidential Actions: The President can propose budget cuts or changes, but ultimately, Congress must approve these through the appropriations process.
Whether or not the Big Beautiful Bill will take steps to defend PP remains to be seen (it would have to be done in reconciliation).

As to defending the morality of his policies, I am not required to do such…and you still have not given me an ultimate morality standard by which to measure politicians.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Trump cannot unilaterally defund PP without Congress:
  • Congressional Authority over Funding: The power of the purse resides with Congress, meaning they are responsible for appropriating funds for federal programs, including those related to healthcare and family planning.
  • Planned Parenthood Funding: Planned Parenthood receives federal funding through programs like Title X, which supports family planning services, and Medicaid, which provides healthcare access to low-income individuals.
  • Presidential Actions: The President can propose budget cuts or changes, but ultimately, Congress must approve these through the appropriations process.
Whether or not the Big Beautiful Bill will take steps to defend PP remains to be seen (it would have to be done in reconciliation).

As to defending the morality of his policies, I am not required to do such…and you still have not given me an ultimate morality standard by which to measure politicians.
Click to expand...
From a technical standpoint how can he drop PBS and NPR but not PP?

I am of the belief that the moral standards are pretty well established, for politician or otherwise. 😉

What I don't understand is how those standards are so easily excused away for "policy" reasons. Weirder still is that the policies don't even have to make sense. The standard mantra of the Republican Party has been that the government should stay out of business decisions. One recent example. Price controls are bad. Except for prescription drugs. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Except for the ones who can convince the administration that they should get relief from tariffs. The government should be bound by laws established via the Constitutional method of congressionally passed acts signed by the president. Unless we can get our way by just declaring it so via executive orders.

Boil it down to this. The United States would be better served by a church sold out to God than one compromised by political entanglements.
 
subllibrm said:
From a technical standpoint how can he drop PBS and NPR but not PP?

I am of the belief that the moral standards are pretty well established, for politician or otherwise. 😉

What I don't understand is how those standards are so easily excused away for "policy" reasons. Weirder still is that the policies don't even have to make sense. The standard mantra of the Republican Party has been that the government should stay out of business decisions. One recent example. Price controls are bad. Except for prescription drugs. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Except for the ones who can convince the administration that they should get relief from tariffs. The government should be bound by laws established via the Constitutional method of congressionally passed acts signed by the president. Unless we can get our way by just declaring it so via executive orders.

Boil it down to this. The United States would be better served by a church sold out to God than one compromised by political
Click to expand...

I have never argued that any politician met your standard. Ever. I try to be a realist, especially in politics. I’d love to have a government that held to your standards and I’m not arguing against them. I am not and have never argued that Trump or any party is not driven by by political expediency. However in governance there is also a political reality. That reality is why we are stuck with the current Big Beautiful Bill.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Trump cannot unilaterally defund PP without Congress:
  • Congressional Authority over Funding: The power of the purse resides with Congress, meaning they are responsible for appropriating funds for federal programs, including those related to healthcare and family planning.
  • Planned Parenthood Funding: Planned Parenthood receives federal funding through programs like Title X, which supports family planning services, and Medicaid, which provides healthcare access to low-income individuals.
  • Presidential Actions: The President can propose budget cuts or changes, but ultimately, Congress must approve these through the appropriations process.
Whether or not the Big Beautiful Bill will take steps to defend PP remains to be seen (it would have to be done in reconciliation).

As to defending the morality of his policies, I am not required to do such…and you still have not given me an ultimate morality standard by which to measure politicians.
Click to expand...
From a technical standpoint how can he drop PBS and NPR but not PP?

I am of the belief that moral standards are pretty well established, for politician or otherwise. 😉

What I don't understand is how those standards are so easily excused away for "policy" reasons. Weirder still is that the policies don't even have to make sense. The standard mantra of the Republican Party has been that the government should stay out of business decisions. One recent example. Price controls are bad. Except for prescription drugs. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Except for the ones who can convince the administration that they should get relief from tariffs. The government should be bound by laws established via the Constitutional method of congressionally passed acts signed by the president. Unless you can get your way via executive orders.
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Planned Parenthood Funding: Planned Parenthood receives federal funding through programs like Title X, which supports family planning services, and Medicaid, which provides healthcare access to low-income individuals.
Click to expand...

Hm. So the nation's biggest abortion industry gets federal funding, but the federal government can't have the authority to legislate abortion?

Maybe they should just drop PP funding and leave it to the states...
 
subllibrm said:
From a technical standpoint how can he drop PBS and NPR but not PP?

I am of the belief that moral standards are pretty well established, for politician or otherwise. 😉

What I don't understand is how those standards are so easily excused away for "policy" reasons. Weirder still is that the policies don't even have to make sense. The standard mantra of the Republican Party has been that the government should stay out of business decisions. One recent example. Price controls are bad. Except for prescription drugs. The government shouldn't be picking winners and losers. Except for the ones who can convince the administration that they should get relief from tariffs. The government should be bound by laws established via the Constitutional method of congressionally passed acts signed by the president. Unless you can get your way via executive orders.
Click to expand...
Pray tell, how do you decide which candidate meets these well established standards so as to earn your vote…or stop you from criticizing me for the choice I make?
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Pray tell, how do you decide which candidate meets these well established standards so as to earn your vote…or stop you from criticizing me for the choice I make?
Click to expand...
I don't recall criticizing you for your vote. I don't even recall asking you who you voted for.
 
subllibrm said:
I don't recall criticizing you for your vote. I don't even recall asking you who you voted for.
Click to expand...
Please.
You were all over the forum talking about evangelicals having to compromise their morals by supporting immoral Trump. Which is why I ask you what is the appropriate moral standard a candidate must have to earn your vote…because you questioned the morality of supporting Trump.

Was Biden the superior moral choice?
 
Tarheel Baptist said:
Please.
You were all over the forum talking about evangelicals having to compromise their morals by supporting immoral Trump. Which is why I ask you what is the appropriate moral standard a candidate must have to earn your vote…because you questioned the morality of supporting Trump.

Was Biden the superior moral choice?
Click to expand...
Again you are missing my point, then and now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top