OK.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And Roe v. Wade hits the dirt.
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
There's no need to dis those of us who are empathy challenged.
I see an excess of that "quality" getting in the way of reason.
Perhaps civil liberties would be stronger were it curbed a little.
I disagree. Strongly. People who lack empathy often only make civil liberties that benefit them and care little if there's cracks people unlike them fall into. I don't want other people to experience undue pain and suffering even if there's no possible way I could suffer in a similar way.
Different perspectives are useful to recognize.
Even people on the right & left aren't all dumb or wicked.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
It was the Democratic party who didn't want slavery abolished.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Both Kavanaugh and Barrett, not only lied to the confirmation committee, but also to Republican Susan Collins by denying that they would overturn Roe v Wade.
BTW, I just saw an article this morning that the SCOTUS is at an all-time low even after it was at an all-time low a couple of months ago.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Who says? You? What makes you right in an absolute sense?
I agree. Though people who lack empathy are people I unilaterally don't want to be in leadership positions. Right, left, center or anyone on the quadrant.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The parties switched in the early 1900's when the Dems' FDR moved to take the recommendations of Socialist Party head Eugene V. Debs.
I eschew those who prefer emotion to reason.
To each their own, eh.
Heyo
Veteran Member
@Revoltingest
I think of "empathy" as recognizing other peoples perspective, not necessarily taking it.
That would be pity if my understanding of the English language doesn't fool me.
Definition of empathy | Dictionary.com
1) the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another:
To understand others' perspectives doesn't require empathy.
I suggest that some neurotypicals accept that there are
other ways of being, & that we too can be moral & just.
Clarence Thomas called for overturning same sex marriage rights and right to contraception, but curiously left Loving vs Virginia out of it (which would affect his own marriage.)
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ng-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/
snippet:
Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
To be fair since the party was strongest in the South there was still quite a bit of support of Jim Crow there. That slowly died out, but when the Voting Rights Act passed in the 1960's there was still more Republican support for that than Democratic. After the landslide loss of Goldwater all of that changed. The Republicans embraced the South and no longer opposed their racist actions..
So Thomas accepts miscegenation, eh.
Well, he might find the other justices less sympathetic.
Such marriages would be declared invalid. I see some
problems with such a massive upsetting of so many
marriages....illegality of living in sin, children of unknown
custody, contracts voided, wills voided, etc.
But I'll be single again. Woohoo?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep, the "Southern Democrats". BTW, there are still some that can be found in some local races in the South, so they haven't gone entirely extinct.
Jim Crow II
Firstly I said "right" not Democrat or republican. The right was always the pro-slavery ideology. And democrats are still 'the right' in my book. Just more center right.
Secondly, the democratic party didn't exist for most of US slavery history. The southern dixiecrats/southern democrats split happened in the 1860's (and the Northern democratic party was still the larger of the two factions, where Abe was a minority among republicans). It was the democratic republicans (the party of farmers, country living pro slavery) and the federalists (the party of cities, banking, industry and government, who were strongly abolitionist.) the majority of US history with slaves.
Thirdly there's a lot more to black civil rights history than just that small section of Abraham Lincoln's lifetime. And who do you think was the major pusher of segregation and other economic and social hindrances of POC? How about women? Gays?
I could go on more about the dangers of centricism and the schism it brings but if we look at where the skinheads and pro-segregation (or worse) people are now, what ideology do you suppose they're more likely to identify with today, right or left?
That is 98% effective per year. You have to roll the dice every year you use it, which means that on average, barring any underlying fertility issue, a woman will most likely have a contraception failure at least once during her lifetime even if it is 98% effective per year. (20% of women have an underlying fertility issue.)That's exactly the issue, thanks for pointing that out.
If a woman gets pregnant despite her attentive use of contraception, then she can have an abortion.
Because she did anything to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.
And by the way, the hormonal therapy has a 98% effectiveness.
@Polymath257 , can you check my math on this please?
epronovost
Well-Known Member
No, no one forced her to be pregnant, but you will force her to suffer because you will force her stay pregnant and that's all on your shoulders. She didn't need to stay pregnant. Abortions are just as natural as pregnancies; both are the result of human actions and desires.