Posted on 11/20/2018 1:49:02 PM PST by Mariner
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith smilingly posed for a photo in 2014 while wearing a Confederate cap and holding a rifle, then put the image on her Facebook page with the words "Mississippi history at its best!"
That image, taken at a Mississippi museum, resurfaced Tuesday as AT&T, Leidos and Walmart joined two other companies, Union Pacific and Boston Scientific, in asking Hyde-Smith, a Republican, to return campaign contributions because of controversy over her recent jest about being willing to attend a public "hanging."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Article is written by Dr. John C. Willke.
https://www.lifeissues.org/1999/04/rape-pregnancies-are-rare/
Why resort to making stuff up? Even a cursory search would turn up prominent Republicans who owned slaves, for instance Ulysses S. Grant.
I’ll apologize for the burn comment when you apologize for bashing the south, deal?
You are kidding right?
I have never bashed the south. I have nothing to apologize for.
Not once.
I tell people that all the time. They don't want to believe it. They don't want that to be true, but it is.
And yes, the public schools are not teaching people the parts of history that make Lincoln's government look bad.
The democrat party supported slavery, and still support it in the form of the welfare state.
The Republican Party has always opposed slavery.
Prove it wrong.
did you actually read that before you posted it? it says a lot of weird sh*t, but nowhere does it say that female anatomy has a “legitimate rape” detector that sabotages the fertilization process.
The Republican Party has always opposed slavery.
Officially they claimed to have been opposed, but in practice they supported it. One does not do the groundwork to pass the "Corwin Amendment" unless one is okay with the continuation of slavery.
From the article.
Finally, factor in what is certainly one of the most important reasons why a rape victim rarely gets pregnant, and that’s physical trauma. Every woman is aware that stress and emotional factors can alter her menstrual cycle. To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy. So what further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows, but this factor certainly cuts this last figure by at least 50 percent and probably more. If we use the 50 percent figure, we have a final figure of 225 (or 370) women pregnant each year. These numbers closely match the 200 that have been documented in clinical studies.
Not a good look at all. But in 2014 to the best of my recollection, such was still an acceptable, though frowned upon, expression of general Southern pride?
“When it comes to slavery being evil, I agree with you.”
I’m always curious whether that makes George Washington and a lot of other Founders evil. And since London issued two emancipation proclamations during the Revolution whether the wrong side won, judging by 1860 Republican standards. Maybe doubly so, since the Revolution was a war of secession from the United Kingdom and Lincoln’s argument against that was the same as George III.
there is no way you are actually this dense.
let me translate it for you, beginning with “This can radically . . .”:
.
.
Here is an unproven observation. Here are a few more. Here is a rhetorical question. Here are the critical words “NO ONE KNOWS”. Here is the author acting like he knows, anyway. Here is some math devoid of an underlying foundation that makes it look like I am being scientific and fact-based. Here is me ending the column before you realize that this is all bullsh*t.
.
.
for this to be true, many established laws of biology would have to be false. it’s absurd on it’s face, not to mention that I only really need ONE pregnancy that resulted from rape to blow your little fairy tale out of the water.
it’s just ridiculous.
The point is, it's not a silly claim. There is supporting evidence for it, and it should not have been waved away with mockery.
it either does, or it doesn’t. and no one knows what “more often than it doesn’t” even means (especially him), because no one on earth knows what either one of those two numbers are.
this is voodoo. it’s the equivalent of claiming the earth is flat. I am surprised you and roy moore aren’t out sacrificing virgins to the sun god right now.
Sounds like what’s been buzzing around your head is a big lie of the political species of lies, and you’ve allowed them things to build a nest up in there.
It is far more difficult to root out corporate sin, and far more difficult to address the individual culpability for that corporate sin. Likewise, the understanding of the violation of human dignity inherent in slavery came to be better understood through the time of the Renaissance.
It was Bartolome de las Casas who articulated a position against slavery in the 16th Century (first only against enslaving the Indians, then later he developed his view to be against the enslavement of anyone, including Africans). Think of the social sins of our own time (including but not limited to abortion, wages that don't match a living wage, environmental destruction, treatment of migrants)—not everyone is equally capable of changing them, and not everyone agrees on the particular solution. For that matter, not everyone even agrees on what the problem is.
In the same way, culpability shifts with understanding. Slavery was always objectively evil... however, it was not always understood to be so, therefore someone in the 14th Century is less culpable for their participation in societal structures that foster and depend on slavery than someone in the 16th, someone in the 16th less than one in the mid-19th, someone in the mid-19th Century less than someone today.
My whole point in bringing up the Founding Fathers at all was to point out the absurdity of the black-and-white thinking on the issue of secession and how slavery ties into it—I did not expect an actual answer to what I understand to be a difficult question, particularly read through a modern lens. Both in the Revolution and the Civil War, slavery was an issue, but not the only issue.
Thank you for your correction on this point. That makes the muddiness of the whole situation even more evident.
What are some resources (books, websites, etc.) where I can read more about this?
I had mentioned upthread that it was Lincoln's magnanimity toward the South that allowed him to become the hero instead of the villain. But it also seems that the heroic status afforded to Lincoln after the War has shrouded some of the questionable decisions he made in attempting to preserve the Union. I knew about the suspension of habeas corpus, but the warships at Ft. Sumter was one I also was unaware of.
Slavery can never be legal for it is a violation of Natural Law.
As you indicated the territories would have been unlikely to support slave economies but that did not stop the Slavers from demanding that it not be prohibited.
Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution demanding its expansion.
The South had a losing hand because it was slavery vs abolition hence it did not possess the High Ground of Morality. Slavery can never be legal because it is a violation of Natural Law.
The Fire-eaters had been agitating for secession for over a decade. Talk about Quixotic and clueless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.