It also gave you some insight into the way England viewed the American Civil War
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
They created a union in which slavery persisted, despite the fact that some of them spread the rumor that they believed that men were created equal.
[/quote]
People sure are good at looking back in time with the benefit of hindsight and making value judgments.
[/quote]
It doesn’t take hindsight to understand the irony in writing that all men are created equal while, at that very same instant, owning men. It cheapens and reduces the Founders, to excuse their faults by adding “context.” They weren’t Neanderthals. They were smart people. Their sins are their sins and they don’t get to hide from them.
Again, they created a union in which slavery persisted, despite the fact that some of them spread the rumor that they believed that men were created equal. Thank God this union no longer exists.
Edit: Note that you’re flirting with the role of moral relativist here. The Founders were products of their environments–yeah, so? We all are. Fred West was. They were, many of them, geniuses. They could have figured it all out. And some did.[/quote]
I agree with you. Don’t get me wrong.
Thing is, and this is necessarily directed at you, folks will use the “relative context” angle on abortion too.
Slavery was wrong on all counts then. It’s wrong today.
Abortion was wrong on all counts when Roe v Wade came down. It’s wrong today. [/quote]
I agree with you almost completely, Push. However, I’m not sure that, in the future, people will look back and marvel that it was legal. I’m afraid people might look back and marvel that there were those who wanted to stop it.[/quote]
Current opinion polls on the subject seem to fly against your fears here. It seems it is the older generations that still cling to the idea they can arbitrarily define what is human and when life begins.
I mean, the same people that cry about “science” when it comes to climate change, can’t ignore it when it comes to abortion forever before the proverbial light bulb turns on.
The argument of “abortion is cool because overpopulation” is plain laughable. hilariously stupid, short sighted and utterly contradictory. “Human’s are smart enough and powerful enough to control the Earth’s climate and decide who should live or die and when. However we certainly aren’t smart and powerful enough to manipulate the use and distribution of resources in a way that accommodates the population, we like, don’t have the technology and stuff.”
Silly really.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
…the union is the most important thing…
[/quote]
THAT was what was being debated. Not slavery.
Some argued the union was the most important thing. Others argued the freedom to disunite was more important.
[/quote]
Given the times, and my understanding (which is obviously limited, I wasn’t there) I would imagine the Union was more important than any other issue. Given, essentially, the ultimate position of weakness two (or more) separate nations would have been at that point.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Current opinion polls on the subject seem to fly against your fears here. It seems it is the older generations that still cling to the idea they can arbitrarily define what is human and when life begins.
I mean, the same people that cry about “science” when it comes to climate change, can’t ignore it when it comes to abortion forever before the proverbial light bulb turns on.
The argument of “abortion is cool because overpopulation” is plain laughable. hilariously stupid, short sighted and utterly contradictory. “Human’s are smart enough and powerful enough to control the Earth’s climate and decide who should live or die and when. However we certainly aren’t smart and powerful enough to manipulate the use and distribution of resources in a way that accommodates the population, we like, don’t have the technology and stuff.”
Silly really. [/quote]
Agreed re: overpopulation. Science too, sort of, but not really: It’s more philosophy than science.
My fear has more to do with the fact that I think that it is exceedingly difficult to take something away once it’s been established. And even more than that, I think conservatives are going to be losing elections with increasing frequency as time goes on (after these midterms), at least until an election cycle can come and go without liberals being tossed fastballs over the middle of the plate re: rape, gays, Latinos, poor people. An infight between the TEA party and the establishment will only exacerbate this.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And even more than that, I think conservatives are going to be losing elections with increasing frequency as time goes on (after these midterms), at least until an election cycle can come and go without liberals being tossed fastballs over the middle of the plate re: rape, gays, Latinos, poor people. An infight between the TEA party and the establishment will only exacerbate this.[/quote]
I understand where you are coming from, but think it is short sighted in general. Lets look at two things:
-
Democrats own congress for the better part of the 1900’s, and we saw them shift from enslaving black people, to lynching black people, to segregating black people, to the champion of blacks in America. In 100 or so years that is quite a transition. If public opinion continues to shift, you’ll see the opportune Democrat party pick up the “abortion is wrong” flag just as fast as they picked up the “we should kill babies” flag.
-
The ideas of “small government” and “lower taxes” aren’t going anywhere. So whether the opposition party is called “Republicans”, “Tea Party”, “Rent is Damn High Party” or “YOLO Party” it won’t matter. The general notion of American freedom and economic enterprise is still quite a few generations away from being bread out of existence.
The republicans have been the minority party since inception, and the Democrats have had the populous rhetoric advantage since they were Jefferson’s Republicans. This isn’t going to change, and really, it shouldn’t.
Only thing worse than two options is one. As dumb as the average voter appears to be, I have faith they get that.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I think conservatives are going to be losing elections with increasing frequency as time goes on (after these midterms), [/quote]
To this specifically.
You think?
I can see how the numbers game sort of plays into Red Team’s favor, but I just don’t see enough of a shift back to center for that to happen.
We are leaning pretty damn left as a country right now. What was center in 1960 is now extreme right, and center in 1980 (Romney) is the subject of ridicule and the height of high humor of the left.
(I’m not saying this is all bad, certain social changes, ie: weed, IMO are good shifts “left”, but you know what I’m saying…)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
And even more than that, I think conservatives are going to be losing elections with increasing frequency as time goes on (after these midterms), at least until an election cycle can come and go without liberals being tossed fastballs over the middle of the plate re: rape, gays, Latinos, poor people. An infight between the TEA party and the establishment will only exacerbate this.[/quote]
I understand where you are coming from, but think it is short sighted in general. Lets look at two things:
- Democrats own congress for the better part of the 1900’s, and we saw them shift from enslaving black people, to lynching black people, to segregating black people, to the champion of blacks in America. In 100 or so years that is quite a transition. If public opinion continues to shift, you’ll see the opportune Democrat party pick up the “abortion is wrong” flag just as fast as they picked up the “we should kill babies” flag.
[/quote]
Oh I certainly agree re: that kind of span of time. Who knows what the issues will even be in 50 years? It seems likely that medical technology will become a huge ethical issue in elections in the near future, but on what specific terms and to what end, I don’t know.
More generally, party evolution is something people just don’t get these days–you’ll see this often, with partisans of both the left and the right trying to hold their opponents responsible for shit that happened long ago.
When I say “with increasing frequency” and “as time goes on,” I mean much shorter term than 100 or 50 years. The point being that the longer this country leans left, the longer the abortion movement has to dig its roots in.
By the way–just a disclaimer–my view on abortion is complicated. I talk like I’m pro-life because that’s how I lean, but I am not among the people who consider the destruction of a zygote and the murder of a ten year old to be morally equivalent offenses.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
…I am not among the people who consider the destruction of a zygote and the murder of a ten year old to be morally equivalent offenses.
[/quote]
Understandable.
But you have to get on board somewhere. Pick a spot on the timeline and defend it.
[/quote]
Heart Beat.
I don’t begrudge or judge a woman who has an abortion. It isn’t going to change how I view her, particularly if she was young.
But I just don’t understand how you see that heart beat, clear as day, and slice up and vacuum it out.
The legacy of Abraham Lincoln has something to do with abortion?
T-Nation thread zooms strike again 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Abortion is the ultimate expression of slavery.
[/quote]
Eye roll
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Here is the marxist perspective
Excellent post 2 competing labor forces , you could even make the jump that slavery suppressed wages for the northern labor force . Competition in labor between the Irish and the Black , poor white vs black . Call it the Emancipation of Labor
[/quote]
I am really curious how and why this subject swung from Civil War to Abortion
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am really curious how and why this subject swung from Civil War to Abortion
[/quote]
Because the war was fought, in large part, because of the issue of slavery, otherwise known as person owning another, therefore owning the rights of the other. Playing God, if you will.
ABortion is owning the rights of another, playing God if you will.
Not a stretch. Not where I would have taken the thread, but not a stretch by any sense.
That, and democrats support both.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am really curious how and why this subject swung from Civil War to Abortion
[/quote]
Because the war was fought, in large part, because of the issue of slavery, otherwise known as person owning another, therefore owning the rights of the other. Playing God, if you will.
ABortion is owning the rights of another, playing God if you will.
Not a stretch. Not where I would have taken the thread, but not a stretch by any sense.
That, and democrats support both. [/quote]
The problem is NO I WON’T , It is absurd to link abortion to slavery . First of all it is a huge stretch to call a mass of living cells a person and where does the forced labor come into it .
IT is HIGH JACKING the thread
Let me know if you want more
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The problem is NO I WON’T ,[/quote]
Feel free to leave the thread then. You haven’t added any substance anyway.
Science and logic disagree with you. Please go on and tell me about climate change while you’re at it.
So, a slave forced to sit in a corner and do nothing but sit is no longer a slave? Not free to go, not free to move. No labor.
[quote]IT is HIGH JACKING the thread
[/quote]
Again, you’re providing no real input anyway, so why bother commenting?
Your conscious bothering you?