2016 Election Thread

[TheLeviathan]

I play those games and I'm alright, but they are reaching extremely young audiences.  Too young.

 

My licensing thing is a joke, but as a teacher I can tell you parents of all different ilks are awful at it.  You want to talk about a way to help the future - fix bad parenting.  It's running rampant.

 

And pay teachers more so there are more awesome ones like me, but I digress.....

[formerly33]

 

Fix bad parenting.

Ah, so impossibly easy to say ... yet so impossible to execute. I could think about this for years and I don't know if I'd come up with an even halfway decent solution. And if I did ... could it be carried out? That would take another lifetime to find out.

 

But instead of my pointless banter on here, I'll take a break now and try to figure that one out in my head.

[Mike Sixel]

Going back to teaching nutrition and parenting and other "soft skills" in schools would be a start. Requiring something like ECFE 1ould be a good idea. But we largely just let parents wing it. Frankly once they are born.....they are someone else's problem, until they are all our problem. That's how many people behave.

[biggentleben]

 

One last thing: most cases of abortion I know of, the mother wanted the baby but was pushed into the decision by jerk boyfriends and controlling parents. Women's rights indeed!

 

I have counseled dozens of women who have had or are considering an abortion, and I can honestly say that not one woman has ever been forced into the abortion that I met with, so the reality of your statement is highly dubious. I have seen parents and boyfriends who suggested it, but I have never counseled a woman who was "forced" into the decision.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I agree that these are reasonable questions that we should think long and hard about.

 

But then I remember that nearly every non-Catholic Christian church supported Roe v Wade after the ruling and my head wants to explode. The Pro-Life movement is largely a manufactured political device, created to rile up what was once an uninterested base. In many ways, the creation of the Pro-Life movement by Evangelicals has directly led to the polarization and ultimate "WTF" status of the current GOP. So effective in all the wrong ways.

 

I actually sympathize with the concept of pro-lifers. I do not sympathize with the current movement because of the reason I listed above (and a few others I won't get into here).

 

Damn it all, so many people who vote pro-life &^%$ing remember the mid 1970s and were probably attending the same church they attend today. How do they not remember that their own church was once tolerated Roe v Wade and how do they not ask questions about it, starting with "WHY?"

 

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

 

*head explodes*

 

First off, the idea that only Catholics were against Roe V Wade is blatantly false.  Sorry, that's a hot button issue among A LOT of Christians.  That may have been true in your circles, but hardly true among Christians as a whole.

 

I won't argue with it that it's used to rile the base up.  Really, in reality, just about everything these days (on both sides of the aisle) is designed for that purpose. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

This one is easy!

 

Pragmatism.

 

It is less expensive to put someone in a cell for the rest of their natural life than it is to put them through the lengthy appeals process required to ensure guilt and later, execution.

 

So why kill them in the first place? I honestly couldn't care less if someone is executed by the state but when the cheaper option is to lock them up and throw away the key, that's a better option in my eyes. These people are a blight on society and while I take no delight in knowing someone is going to be killed by the state, what I feel is most important is that we allow those blights to consume as few state resources as possible. If that means keeping them alive, so be it.

 

I'm not quite sure I agree here Brock.  There's a huge difference between rule of the law that takes the rights away from someone who has abused his/her rights and abortion.  An unborn child hurt no one.  A murderer, on the other hand, did.  I really fail to understand how people cannot see that distinction.  I get that an unborn child that places its mother's life in danger needs to be aborted, and honestly I think that's a bit of a red herring as I don't know any pro-life people who would say that it shouldn't.  Especially since in most of those situations (like an ectopic pregnancy for instance), the unborn child will die as well.

 

That said, I think for justice to be just, you need to have a system in place that takes the rights away from the abuser in the same manner in which they abused their rights.  I also think that the cost to execute them argument stems from other problems that also need solving, and to some extent are very solvable, but it's often easier to simply point out this 'problem' as an excuse to not solve it than to tackle the greater problems. 

 

That said, I do think the biggest issue against the death penalty is the one Dave echoed earlier.  Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt has put plenty of innocent people behind bars.  I do think that we should have a different standard today for the DP, requiring forensics/DNA to tie a victim, the weapon, and the supposed murder together before you can even talk DP.  I don't think that it's unreasonable to have an even higher standard before it even comes into discussion.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

There is overlap but this is my understanding of the situation:

 

On the far far right, flouride is considered some kind of bizarre governmental conspiracy. It's not a denial of science so much as a denial of common sense coupled with extreme paranoia.

 

On the far far left, flouride is considered dangerous because it's a "foreign element". It's largely the same argument used to remove GMOs from our food supply. Never mind that flouride is a naturally-occurring entity and has been rigorously tested by science. Hence, the left's position is more anti-science than the right.

 

Portland, one of the most left-leaning cities in the country, voted against the addition of flouride to their water supply because... Well, it's not even worth discussing the "why" because it's utter nonsense.

 

When we are talking straw men and denying science, a lot of this is exactly that.  What is really at stake here is freedoms. 

 

The problem isn't with the science behind GMO's, it's that the science is hardly complete.  Long term health concerns haven't been adequately addressed and to be quite honest, people have the right to decide to not be someone else's test subject.  And while we are on the topic of science, let's not sit and pretend that science used to prove something is good has on many occasions been proved later to be blatantly false (look at trans-fats and their health benefits for example).  Add to this the fact that GMO producers have gone out of their way to be able hide their use in common products.  I really don't care if you want to consume GMO products.  I do care that I don't have the right to not buy them, because I have no means of identifying them thanks to a lobbying group that has successfully bought our politicians.  I do care that this is the type of genetic engineering that could quite accidentally create a scenario right out of a Michael Crighton book, and no one is asking the right questions, as the people we would hope are asking them are the ones that are profiting by ignoring them. 

 

Flouride is another one.  You use it to kill things in water that cause nasty diseases such as dysentery.  On the flip side, it's a carcinogen and isn't easily processed by the human body and linked to a number of longer term nasty issues.  Is it a tradeoff?  Sure, should you and I be telling everyone that they have to consume this?  Is it wrong for people who don't want to consume it to seek another option?  The problem here is simply assuming they are nut cases and going on oppressing them.  They are well within their rights (right or wrong, it really isn't ours to decide) to say they don't want to consume fluoride. 

 

And vaccines... Same issue.  You have an industry that profits royally from them, who has successfully lobbied the government to exempt them from all civil reciprocity for the efficacy and side effects their products, and is actively using the same government to force it's people to buy their products, some of which aren't really medically necessary (such as chickenpox) or have some serious efficacy concerns (such as HPV).  Not to mention that vaccines can have side effects (what those are is up for debate, but there's plenty of it out there).  It's not their right to tell you or I how to vaccinate ourselves, that's a decision between me and my doctor.  If I choose to not vaccinate myself or my children, that's my risk, and if these vaccines work as advertised, I'm not really exposing those who chose to vaccinate themselves to any real risk, am I?  The only one I expose is myself, and I shouldn't have to hide behind religious reasons to avoid this.

 

This is where politics has gone horribly wrong.  A choice between Republican and Democrat is a choice as to which institution gets to run your life.  The problem is that neither are too terribly concerned with the idea that I should be the one to run my life.  That's why they both need to go.

[Craig Arko]

I'm going to go pet my two GMO's, and be happy they don't have that instinctual need to rip my throat out.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I was talking about the climate change which is why I only quoted that.

Anyone who thinks the earth is 5,000-10,000 years old isn't even worth spending a thought on.(luckily those numbers are fewer and fewer)

 

Again, this is all distorted.  I don't think anyone doubts that climate change exists.  What is up for debate is whether or not it is man made, and there's plenty of science supporting both sides of the argument.  One volcanic eruption can send more greenhouse gases into the air than years worth of human production.  Heck, there are studies pointing indicating that cow farts contribute to it, not to mention things such as solar cycles and how they affect climate that we barely understand.  The issue at hand is when you get extreme points of view arguing a point that crowds out those of us in the middle who are perfectly fine with reasonable controls in place to leave our children a relatively clean planet.   Those extremes exist more for reasons of greed than practicality. 

 

As for your second point, this is something that goes far beyond an old earth/young earth debate.  I'd be willing to bet most people in this forum don't understand both sides of the argument.  It's often easy to dismiss someone's viewpoint as idiotic, and not worth a thought, whether that's creation, vaccines, GMO, environmentalism, etc.  No one even bothers to attempt to understand the other side.  They just demonize it and move on. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I love this thought experiment and I chuckle every time I think of it.

 

If God created the universe, then take a step further back in time and ask "When was God created?"

 

If nothing created God and he always existed, why couldn't the universe do the same?

 

And if the universe created itself from nothing and/or always existed, is it God?

 

There's actually quite a bit of ink spilled on this.  Essentially it comes down to an uncaused cause.  Whether that's God, a singularity, the big bang, or who knows what else, everything has a cause.  That's what our laws of science tell us. 

 

But here we are in a universe that began, which his not in dispute.  What caused it?  It's a problem that both atheists, theists, and everyone in between have.  I call it God.  You call it something different, but it's an uncaused cause that you still need to explain. 

[Craig Arko]

Bishop Ussher's been dead 350 years, and uranium decay dating is pretty reliable, so I'd say anyone arguing for a young Earth is safely considered fringe.

 

As far as climate change goes, even were humanity not the cause (and we are), we're still liable to be just as extinct either way, so we'd better come up with a plan, don't you think?

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I play those games and I'm alright, but they are reaching extremely young audiences.  Too young.

 

My licensing thing is a joke, but as a teacher I can tell you parents of all different ilks are awful at it.  You want to talk about a way to help the future - fix bad parenting.  It's running rampant.

 

And pay teachers more so there are more awesome ones like me, but I digress.....

 

Me thinks that at the end of the day, if you got rid of bad parents, there wouldn't be any society.  The real problem is that everyone thinks that everyone else is a bad parent while ignoring their own problems. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Bishop Ussher's been dead 350 years, and uranium decay dating is pretty reliable, so I'd say anyone arguing for a young Earth is safely considered fringe.

As far as climate change goes, even were humanity not the cause (and we are), we're still liable to be just as extinct either way, so we'd better come up with a plan, don't you think?

 

If you pull up it's wiki page, proponents of uranium decay dating come right out and say it doesn't work with young samples (i.e. less than 2 million years). It's entire premise assumes an old earth, and it's then used to prove it. That's the definition of circular reasoning. What that means is that we have no control group to actually verify it's accuracy.  I'm not sure how anyone can say with any certainty that it's 'reliable' given that it's purely theoretical and cannot accurately date anything whose date is absolutely known. Is there good theory behind it?  Sure. But it doesn't prove what people say it proves.

  

That issue aside, as it's not what I want to argue, is that your dismissal of anyone who doesn't believe it's reliable goes right into what I was saying earlier about not even understanding the basics of any argument. It's not fringe that someone recognizes this. Even it's proponents do. They simply ignore it. The same is true with climate change. There's plenty of interesting arguments on both sides of that debate, but at the end of the day, people usually have their mind made up long before they look at it.

[Craig Arko]

I think you'll find radiometric dating has a pretty solid foundation.

 

http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating3.html

 

This is why getting lunar samples was something of a big deal, scientifically speaking. The dates of earth sample, lunar sample, and meteoric samples agree. The age of the solar system is not just wild-ass guesswork.

 

This is also a fun one: the age of the Universe. Welcome to WMAP.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

[TheLeviathan]

 

Me thinks that at the end of the day, if you got rid of bad parents, there wouldn't be any society.  The real problem is that everyone thinks that everyone else is a bad parent while ignoring their own problems. 

 

All parents make mistakes.  They aren't who I refer to as "bad parents".  I could give you a litany of examples from my teaching experiences.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And vaccines... Same issue.  You have an industry that profits royally from them, who has successfully lobbied the government to exempt them from all civil reciprocity for the efficacy and side effects their products, and is actively using the same government to force it's people to buy their products, some of which aren't really medically necessary (such as chickenpox) or have some serious efficacy concerns (such as HPV).  Not to mention that vaccines can have side effects (what those are is up for debate, but there's plenty of it out there).  It's not their right to tell you or I how to vaccinate ourselves, that's a decision between me and my doctor.  If I choose to not vaccinate myself or my children, that's my risk, and if these vaccines work as advertised, I'm not really exposing those who chose to vaccinate themselves to any real risk, am I?  The only one I expose is myself, and I shouldn't have to hide behind religious reasons to avoid this.

There are hundreds of thousands American children who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons (weak immune systems, too young to vaccinate, etc.). Every anti-vaccine parent who denies the science, refuses to vaccinate their kid, and sends him/her off to school puts every single one of those kids at risk.

 

I'm not a fan of legislating forced vaccination but I am a fan of people not being stupid.

 

Last year, California and New York had measles outbreaks.

 

MEASLES. How stupid are we? 

 

*shakes head in disbelief*

[Willihammer]

 

There are hundreds of thousands American children who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons (weak immune systems, too young to vaccinate, etc.). Every anti-vaccine parent who denies the science, refuses to vaccinate their kid, and sends him/her off to school puts every single one of those kids at risk.

 

I'm not a fan of legislating forced vaccination but I am a fan of people not being stupid.

 

Last year, California and New York had measles outbreaks.

 

MEASLES. How stupid are we? 

 

*shakes head in disbelief*

 

Two stories.

 

Retired priest of a church I worked at some years ago got old, bed-stricken. Regular visitors from parishioners. Last winter he died. The cause? Flu. What are the odds some parishioner who didn't get their flu shot gave him the flu, and killed him. I'd bet better than 50/50.

 

Second story. Co-worker of mine came in sick one day. Coughing like death. Spitting, sneazing. I told her "You're sick. Would you go home please so I don't get sick." Her reply, " I haven't missed a day of work in 9 years." Wouldn't you know it the entire frikin office caught her sumo-cold. Knocked everyone out for 2-3 days, to a man (one or two may have been opportunists). Well over 100 hours of productivity down the drain because one selfish moron wouldn't use a sick day to at least attempt to quarantine her virus.

[DaveW]

Yeah it actually is a problem if your kids don't get vaccinations and it is a threat to other people (the sick/disabled, the babies etc), parents should be tossed in jail for not giving their kids the basic vaccinations, it's a danger to society.

 

Also to Levs point earlier about male "birth control": I think it would be a great thing overall, but I wonder just how much the birthrate would fall? Genetically speaking there are a lot more males who have no desire to have kids then females. At some point you need a lot of "accidents" to happen year over year.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

There are hundreds of thousands American children who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons (weak immune systems, too young to vaccinate, etc.). Every anti-vaccine parent who denies the science, refuses to vaccinate their kid, and sends him/her off to school puts every single one of those kids at risk.

 

I'm not a fan of legislating forced vaccination but I am a fan of people not being stupid.

 

Last year, California and New York had measles outbreaks.

 

MEASLES. How stupid are we? 

 

*shakes head in disbelief*

 

That's just it Brock, those parents are within their rights in what is a supposedly free country to be stupid.  And the problem with forced vaccination is that those children with weak immune systems end up getting them more often than they don't.  That risk is all on those parents, not on you or me.  If vaccines are as safe as the medical industry claims, then all of the children who got the measles vaccines have nothing to worry about, right?  The only ones at risk are the ones that chose to not vaccinate your children, which should be a decision between them and their doctor.  If it's just stupid, it takes care of itself, but if by chance they actually knew what they were doing, then suddenly we are the ones who are stupid. 

 

It isn't the state's place to tell us how we should medically treat ourselves or our children.  As soon as it becomes that, it essentially gets handed over to lobbyists, and what is and is not in your or my best interest gets decided not by a doctor, but by a lawmaker.  I'll pass on that.  The whole point in living in a free country is freedom to make these kinds of decisions.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Yeah it actually is a problem if your kids don't get vaccinations and it is a threat to other people (the sick/disabled, the babies etc), parents should be tossed in jail for not giving their kids the basic vaccinations, it's a danger to society.

 

 

Do vaccines work?  Because if they do, the only ones at risk are those who have chosen not to be vaccinated.  As it is, these things are applied as soon as a child is old enough to contract the disease in question. I fail to see where that's jail worthy.

[DaveW]

 

Do vaccines work?  Because if they do, the only ones at risk are those who have chosen not to be vaccinated.  As it is, these things are applied as soon as a child is old enough to contract the disease in question. I fail to see where that's jail worthy.

Actually that is false, you can't vaccinate until a certain age and even prior to that the child in some cases can contract the disease in question, not to mention the numerous kids who can't get them due to immune disorders etc.

 

Anti Vaxers are literally the dumbest people on this planet. There is nothing more to say about it.

[biggentleben]

That's just it Brock, those parents are within their rights in what is a supposedly free country to be stupid. And the problem with forced vaccination is that those children with weak immune systems end up getting them more often than they don't. That risk is all on those parents, not on you or me. If vaccines are as safe as the medical industry claims, then all of the children who got the measles vaccines have nothing to worry about, right? The only ones at risk are the ones that chose to not vaccinate your children, which should be a decision between them and their doctor. If it's just stupid, it takes care of itself, but if by chance they actually knew what they were doing, then suddenly we are the ones who are stupid.

 

It isn't the state's place to tell us how we should medically treat ourselves or our children. As soon as it becomes that, it essentially gets handed over to lobbyists, and what is and is not in your or my best interest gets decided not by a doctor, but by a lawmaker. I'll pass on that. The whole point in living in a free country is freedom to make these kinds of decisions.

As a free society, we allow free choice, but we also legislate consequences for stupid choices. I can choose to get drunk all I want, but laws restrict me from driving once I am inebriated with serious consequences if I break that law. A school requiring vaccinations and supporting legal ramifications for anyone who puts other children at risk is just like those drunk driving rules.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Also to Levs point earlier about male "birth control": I think it would be a great thing overall, but I wonder just how much the birthrate would fall? Genetically speaking there are a lot more males who have no desire to have kids then females. At some point you need a lot of "accidents" to happen year over year.

 

From what I've read the male contraception is basically a pill that sterilizes you for a short period of time.  And it's been tested as far more effective than current forms of contraception that are generally incumbent on women.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's just it Brock, those parents are within their rights in what is a supposedly free country to be stupid.  And the problem with forced vaccination is that those children with weak immune systems end up getting them more often than they don't.  That risk is all on those parents, not on you or me.  If vaccines are as safe as the medical industry claims, then all of the children who got the measles vaccines have nothing to worry about, right?  The only ones at risk are the ones that chose to not vaccinate your children, which should be a decision between them and their doctor.  If it's just stupid, it takes care of itself, but if by chance they actually knew what they were doing, then suddenly we are the ones who are stupid. 

 

It isn't the state's place to tell us how we should medically treat ourselves or our children.  As soon as it becomes that, it essentially gets handed over to lobbyists, and what is and is not in your or my best interest gets decided not by a doctor, but by a lawmaker.  I'll pass on that.  The whole point in living in a free country is freedom to make these kinds of decisions.

 

There are kids that cannot get the vaccine because of immune disorders.  Every moron who doesn't vaccinate their kid (usually on the basis of debunked "studies") risks destabilizing the herd immunity.  

 

In other words, they risk bringing diseases we have fought to the point of extinction back that would otherwise not threaten those children.  Not vaccinating a kid capable of getting one seriously risks the life of a kid with an immune disorder.  This is a real thing.

[DaveW]

 

From what I've read the male contraception is basically a pill that sterilizes you for a short period of time.  And it's been tested as far more effective than current forms of contraception that are generally incumbent on women.

That's what I sorta mean, I could see the birthrate dropping enough where it could screw us economically a little bit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

That's just it Brock, those parents are within their rights in what is a supposedly free country to be stupid.  And the problem with forced vaccination is that those children with weak immune systems end up getting them more often than they don't.  That risk is all on those parents, not on you or me.  If vaccines are as safe as the medical industry claims, then all of the children who got the measles vaccines have nothing to worry about, right?  The only ones at risk are the ones that chose to not vaccinate your children, which should be a decision between them and their doctor.  If it's just stupid, it takes care of itself, but if by chance they actually knew what they were doing, then suddenly we are the ones who are stupid. 

 

It isn't the state's place to tell us how we should medically treat ourselves or our children.  As soon as it becomes that, it essentially gets handed over to lobbyists, and what is and is not in your or my best interest gets decided not by a doctor, but by a lawmaker.  I'll pass on that.  The whole point in living in a free country is freedom to make these kinds of decisions.

While I agree that we must always consider individual liberty, this transcends the rights of the individual and the repercussions must be considered. By refusing to vaccinate their kid, a parent is risking the health of another child who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. That is a real thing. It exists. It's not uncommon.

 

While I'm not a fan of forcing vaccination, I think schools refusing to admit non-vaccinated kids is a reasonable solution. The school should make a decision in the interest of all its students, especially when the unvaccinated kid's parents made a reckless and selfish decision based on misinformation.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Do vaccines work?  Because if they do, the only ones at risk are those who have chosen not to be vaccinated.  As it is, these things are applied as soon as a child is old enough to contract the disease in question. I fail to see where that's jail worthy.

Lots of misinformation here. Babies aren't magically immune to measles but they cannot be vaccinated for a year or more after birth. Many vaccines aren't given until early to mid childhood.

 

There are also many kids who have weakened immune systems and can never be vaccinated.

 

It requires one to plant their head deeply into the sand to say "this only effects me". It clearly doesn't. We're a society of people and those people interact. Some of those people cannot be vaccinated against specific diseases and every one of them risks their health when they step out the door to their home, all thanks to the horribly misguided anti-vaxxer movement.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Not vaccinating a kid capable of getting one seriously risks the life of a kid with an immune disorder. This is a real thing.

And let's not forget that those immune-deficient kids grow into immune-deficient adults. My wife works with one.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And this reminds me of the Charleston thread. I think that part of the problem with kids being ... what should I say, mentally disturbed? these days is because of the idiotic video games that they play. They are subtly taught that killing is okay through those games, and I can only imagine the desensitization going on is pretty high. My 13 year old brother, for instance, is addicted to video games. He also has a problem with violence. Let him have the former and the latter would almost certainly come into play ... first in the games, later leaking into real-life scenarios. I don't even want to imagine what he would end up like if he played the games that some kids play.

While I agree that violent video games should be played only by children mature enough to understand the consequences of violence (or an adult), you're confusing causation with correlation.

 

There have been many studies that attempt to link violent behavior to video games. The link is tenuous at best and likely to be non-existent. Do kids who feel isolated (the kids who are more prone to acting out violently) play video games in greater numbers? Yeah, maybe... But that's because video games offer escapism for that isolation (one of real reasons kids act out so violently and inappropriately), the same way books, comic books, movies, and television did in the past. The isolation is the problem (the causation), not the video games (the correlation) they play to ease that feeling of isolation.

 

Do you know how many copies the last Grand Theft Auto game sold in the world? 55 million copies. Over half those sales came outside of the United States, yet we hear nary a murmur of a crazed Australian teenager shooting up his local grocery store. I haven't seen any stories about Canadian teens lighting up a Canucks game with an AR-15. This is a uniquely American occurrence... or at least the insane frequency is uniquely American.

 

With that said, let's flip this argument around a bit. Since the invention of realistic violence in video games in the early 90s, violent crime in America has been on the decline. Not just a little bit, but a whole lot on the decline. Do violent video games actually cure real-world violence? Of course not, that's a silly argument. It's confusing correlation with causation again.

 

And, like so many other things in America, it's time we stop confusing correlation with causation and start having real conversations about problems so we can actually fix something.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

First off, the idea that only Catholics were against Roe V Wade is blatantly false.  Sorry, that's a hot button issue among A LOT of Christians.  That may have been true in your circles, but hardly true among Christians as a whole.

I shouldn't have said "nearly all" but a significant portion of Protestant churches didn't display outrage over Roe v Wade for many years after the ruling. Many church officials actually came out in favor of it.

 

Here are a few articles I've found on the subject, though I wish I could find the really in-depth one I discovered a few years back.

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/23/roe-v-wade-backlash-myth-clouds-real-history-of-states-rights-and-segregated-schools/

 

http://spectator.org/articles/33997/protestants-and-abortion

 

The second article flatly states that the second and third largest religions in America - Southern Baptist and Methodist - embraced or tolerated Roe v Wade for many years after the ruling.