Why are so many Americans pro-slavery & anti-abortion?

[philosopher]

With the rise of the Right in U.S. alot of americans are becoming increasingly in favor of the confederates and pro-slavery.

Which arguments do you put forth in defense for re-instating slavery (or wanted to keep it in the first place)?

And why should people be born into slavery simply because of their color, genes or any other stuff they had no say in?

Alot of americans are also "pro life", meaning they are anti-abortion. But pro-life only extends to the life inside the woman's body, not when it lives by its own. Say the child gets ill, there's no tax paid health care. Also pro-life does not extend to abolishment of the death penalty.

Why?

[Scott Mayers]

With the rise of the Right in U.S. alot of americans are becoming increasingly in favor of the confederates and pro-slavery.

Which arguments do you put forth in defense for re-instating slavery (or wanted to keep it in the first place)?

And why should people be born into slavery simply because of their color, genes or any other stuff they had no say in?

Alot of americans are also "pro life", meaning they are anti-abortion. But pro-life only extends to the life inside the woman's body, not when it lives by its own. Say the child gets ill, there's no tax paid health care. Also pro-life does not extend to abolishment of the death penalty.

Why?

To me there are a lot of political contradictions that are hidden from the general public perspective. Religion is used by the conservative right to justify things like abortion when there is likely an underlying justification not spoken:

...like that as population increases, especially among the poor, the DEMAND upon employment makes those in power easily able to keep the cost of hiring them (as 'slaves') down.

As to 'slavery' itself, this already exists and always will in a world where inheritance rights are conserved. A 'slave' is just technically anyone FORCED to comply to authorities in a most intrusively personal way, ...such as to work no matter how little they get paid, as though the act itself is sufficient to qualify these people as 'worthy'. This is what I think is behind the contradiction of preventing abortions. Because there is no actual fair nor equitable means to JUSTIFY the conservative view of an unrestricted right to power through ownership, extreme irrational type religions are used to hopefully humble the masses enslaved to an unfortunate life. By asserting hope for redemption in an afterlife, they appeal to the poorer masses to believe it virtuous to serve AND sell the idea that their own inherent fortunes should be conserved as though Nature (via this God) has both qualified them and placed a feigned type of 'burden' upon them to manage the world with their wealth.

The belief in anti-abortion ironically competes against their belief in WAR as a means to cull overpopulation or those who they deem unworthy (unwilling to be blindly subservient to them). They want to BE the 'governement' and so aim to destroy the power of a 'democratic' form of them other than to preserve military and/or police forces under the power of the wealthy non-accountable 'governments' they replace of the democratic ones.

I don't believe the anti-abortion campaign is sincere except for the nutcases the conservatives BEHIND the scenes want to keep most prominently in front to DISTRACT what is actually going on. Why not distract the world by making it look like irrational evangelicals are the ones at fault rather than the actual wealthy inheritors wanting to utilize the religious cause to justify the intention to increase population to create that demand?

[Note too that the concept of "Republican" by the right is literal: to maintain management of the people by representatives of select people the wealthy deem qualified rather than the "Democratic" forms. This is a Platonic literal translation of the distinction there. ]

[henry quirk]

"alot of americans are becoming increasingly in favor of the confederates and pro-slavery."

Your evidence?

#

pro-life does not extend to abolishment of the death penalty.

Generally: adults, guilty of heinous crime, get the chair. Not quite the same, you'll agree, as offing a kid in the womb.

#

"Say the child gets ill, there's no tax paid health care."

The assumption is the parents of the kid are responsible for the kid, not taxpayers.

[Scott Mayers]

"alot of americans are becoming increasingly in favor of the confederates and pro-slavery."

Your evidence?

#

pro-life does not extend to abolishment of the death penalty.

Generally: adults, guilty of heinous crime, get the chair. Not quite the same, you'll agree, as offing a kid in the womb.

#

"Say the child gets ill, there's no tax paid health care."

The assumption is the parents of the kid are responsible for the kid, not taxpayers.

I think he was pointing to the contradiction that the conservative pro-lifers favor the life of zygotes but oddly still favor killing of those full grown adults. If killing mere cells is worse than fully grown beings, there IS a contradiction. I explain a bit of it in my post above and CAN expand further on this.

[henry quirk]

"I think he was pointing to the contradiction that the conservative pro-lifers favor the life of zygotes but oddly still favor killing of those full grown adults."

I think he was doin' more than that, but: let's say he was, for conversation's sake, just addressin' 'that' supposed contradiction.

From the pro-lifer's place: there's no contradiction. He or she believes a pregnant woman carries an innocent child and the death row cell holds a guilty adult (please note: not every pro-lifer favors the death penalty).

[philosopher]

"I think he was pointing to the contradiction that the conservative pro-lifers favor the life of zygotes but oddly still favor killing of those full grown adults."

I think he was doin' more than that, but: let's say he was, for conversation's sake, just addressin' 'that' supposed contradiction.

From the pro-lifer's place: there's no contradiction. He or she believes a pregnant woman carries an innocent child and the death row cell holds a guilty adult (please note: not every pro-lifer favors the death penalty).

And what about the innocents getting executed?

[Scott Mayers]

"I think he was pointing to the contradiction that the conservative pro-lifers favor the life of zygotes but oddly still favor killing of those full grown adults."

I think he was doin' more than that, but: let's say he was, for conversation's sake, just addressin' 'that' supposed contradiction.

From the pro-lifer's place: there's no contradiction. He or she believes a pregnant woman carries an innocent child and the death row cell holds a guilty adult (please note: not every pro-lifer favors the death penalty).

Maybe you aren't aware of the Evangelical argument on this. The arguments given by the evangelicals is opposite to thinking that the unborn are 'innocent'. They argue, based on the evangelical teachings, that we are all LITERALLY born with 'sin' and that if one does not reach the age of being able to 'choose' to be "born again" as a Christian, those babies' souls are being tortured for eternity.

This is a con by those setting this religion up though. The background interpretation suffices given a reinterpretation of the original Adam and Eve story as to be about some real evil curse of humans to be born inheriting the crimes of this presumed literal pair of first humans.

While not every pro-lifer favors the death penalty, this is irrelevant. All that matters are the particular distinct beliefs of those they need of those sheep to represent defense of a particular aspect. The death penalty is also favored by conservatives for this 'culling' of the population where necessary. Those, to them, who are born uninherited, are expected to bear the burden of slavery. Where no 'democratic' form of government exists (ideally then OF the wealthy uniquely), the intent to favor the death penalty is to save any excess costs, create a strong fear in those not willing to follow the laws made uniquely FOR them, and to create laws that most significantly qualify those not willing to BE slaves as 'criminal' for as much defiance as is represented by those challenging their power. Thus, theft, if they had the power, would also be a capital crime, for instance, if they actually had their way.

As to the evasion of immigrants, another contradiction in light of the need for more slaves, the problem deals with competing OTHER interests by 'conservatives' utilizing other religions for their own purposes. The fear, say of letting in the Muslim type of conservative in, is a threat to the convenience of the Evangelical religion to be most easily able to control the masses. The Muslim infiltration, as one of many other similar threats based upon religious convictions, threatens their power because those types of religions favor FOREIGN conservative interests with PRIORITY, rather than the American home-evolved religions.

[henry quirk]

Not every pro-life American is evangelical.

Not every pro-life American is conservative.

There is no monolithic position on these subjects.

Anyone who believes there is a monolithic position on these subjects has -- to be mild -- been fed a plate of crap by folks with agendas.

And: no, 'slavery' doesn't figure into any discussion of either abortion or the death penalty.

[Immanuel Can]

With the rise of the Right in U.S. alot of americans are becoming increasingly in favor of the confederates and pro-slavery.

You mean people are suddenly becoming Democrats?

After all, every single slave owner America at the time of the Emancipation was a Democrat.

Or do you mean like all those Grand Dragons and bedsheet-clad thugs of the KKK, the shock-troop arm of the Democrats?

Or do you mean like all those Democrat senators, like George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Richard Russell and the Dixiecrats, who opposed ending Segregation in schools?

Or do you mean like the modern racist Democrats who run Baltimore, Newark, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, L.A. ...everywhere where the suffering of the great, great, great grandchildren of slaves continues to be multiplied by racist Democrat social policies?

Those Confederates? They're back? I didn't know. Too bad.

I know they were pro-slavery. But that institution is dead in the U.S. Somebody should tell them.

[Scott Mayers]

Not every pro-life American is evangelical.

Not every pro-life American is conservative.

There is no monolithic position on these subjects.

Anyone who believes there is a monolithic position on these subjects has -- to be mild -- been fed a plate of crap by folks with agendas.

And: no, 'slavery' doesn't figure into any discussion of either abortion or the death penalty.

I disagree. There are real contradictions in PARTY positions that require explanation. The political party platforms are what matters, not the fact that people vary in distinct parts of ideologies. Also most of the people regardless are NOT running the parties, the wealthy are. And it is among the differences in THEIR interests that SET the agendas and attempt to mold the rest as pawns.

If you still maintain your view, explain the justification for Evangelical and Fundamentalist religions universally being linked to the right while the more Liberal religions associate with the left. Explain the differences between the Republican versus Democratic distinction, Capitalist versus Communist, Conservative versus Progressive, etc. The left and right terms above associate to their literal left-right political ideologies. The religious of both sides are the power behind the scenes that get used to manipulate the pawns of their own side and to counter the pawns of the other. The game is being played in ways that are contrary and contradictory to a closed system of rationality without noticing these distinctions.

I also think that the relative 'conservatives' are always the stronger of BOTH sides and still relate most to the GROUPS linking culture and religion pluralities and ALL tend to diminish the significance of the actual individuals who ARE those who have the variety you interpret is representative of the actual ideologies.

[Scott Mayers]

With the rise of the Right in U.S. alot of americans are becoming increasingly in favor of the confederates and pro-slavery.

You mean people are suddenly becoming Democrats?

After all, every single slave owner America at the time of the Emancipation was a Democrat.

Or do you mean like all those Grand Dragons and bedsheet-clad thugs of the KKK, the shock-troop arm of the Democrats?

Or do you mean like all those Democrat senators, like George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Richard Russell and the Dixiecrats, who opposed ending Segregation in schools?

Or do you mean like the modern racist Democrats who run Baltimore, Newark, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, L.A. ...everywhere where the suffering of the great, great, great grandchildren of slaves continues to be multiplied by racist Democrat social policies?

Those Confederates? They're back? I didn't know. Too bad.

I know they were pro-slavery. But that institution is dead in the U.S. Somebody should tell them.

The parties are all still run by conservatives and why you are partly correct here. The "Democrats" initially were NOT the slaves but the free voters based upon OWNERSHIP in a similar way to the ancient Greek form of democracy. The country was founded on PLATONIC "republicanism" as a whole and "democratic" on the state level. The 'slave' concept was interpreted then in a similar way to minimum wage NON-owners today. There still IS a form of slavery but is diluted in HOW the slaves are manipulated indirectly rather than directly.

[HexHammer]

Entitled people often think they're superior and others inferior. Inferior people should serve the superior who too often are a bit sociopathic and narcissistic.

USA is VERY religious, and therefore will follow the "word of god" but if they actually read closely they would understand that life isn't 100% holy as they think, since in the bible countless of times life has been annihilated either by his own hand or by a servant king etc.

Else they follow the word of the hippie which solidifies the nonviolent approach, but Jesus was only the son and not god himself, so imo he doesn't have the final say as of such.

[philosopher]

With the rise of the Right in U.S. alot of americans are becoming increasingly in favor of the confederates and pro-slavery.

You mean people are suddenly becoming Democrats?

After all, every single slave owner America at the time of the Emancipation was a Democrat.

Or do you mean like all those Grand Dragons and bedsheet-clad thugs of the KKK, the shock-troop arm of the Democrats?

Or do you mean like all those Democrat senators, like George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Richard Russell and the Dixiecrats, who opposed ending Segregation in schools?

Or do you mean like the modern racist Democrats who run Baltimore, Newark, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, L.A. ...everywhere where the suffering of the great, great, great grandchildren of slaves continues to be multiplied by racist Democrat social policies?

Those Confederates? They're back? I didn't know. Too bad.

I know they were pro-slavery. But that institution is dead in the U.S. Somebody should tell them.

https://www.mediaite.com/online/yes-dem ... the-point/

From the article:

“The Democratic Party used to support slavery!” You’ll read a phrase like this on conservative websites sometimes. You might have heard it from political commentator Dinesh D’Souza, or more recently from The Blaze’s Tomi Lahren.

This is technically accurate, but misleading history. It’s actually the modern Republican Party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic Party.

[Immanuel Can]

The "Democrats" initially were NOT the slaves

No, you're right: they were originally the SLAVE OWNERS.

And later the KKK, and later still, the Segregationists, and eventually the party of miscegenation and eugenics too. They have quite a history.

There still IS a form of slavery but is diluted in HOW the slaves are manipulated indirectly rather than directly.

That is correct, if you include Democrat social policies in that statement.

The big swing of African-American voters to the Democrat side happened at the New Deal, in the '30s. Democrat paternalism has been very destructive to African-Americans.

However, the OP claims "Confederates" are reappearing. That means 100% Democrats, as there were NO Republican "Confederates," and not one Republican slave-owner by Emancipation. Remember who was "the Blue," and who was "the Grey."

[Immanuel Can]

This is technically accurate,

Meaning: "It's 100% true, but we're ashamed to own what we've done."

It’s actually the modern Republican Party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic Party.

Let me guess; you're going to say that the Democrats magically get to disown their history, as of the 1960s, when you're going to allege a "Big Switch" happened. But the problem for that theory is that the massive demographic shift of African-American voters to the Democrats didn't happen then: it happened in the 1930s, following the New Deal, when Democrats were still massively professing the virtues of Segregation. (https://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-a ... -New-Deal/) So you've swallowed a myth. There's no "Big Switch" in the 1960s. Check the demographics.

So how do you get this "spiritual successor" idea? Only by imagining some "spirit" has switched...it's always said to be a "spiritual" response, simply because there's insufficient data to support it on objective terms.

But how would one ever allow the Democrats to disown a vile history you admit they have, and suddenly get to make those who opposed them to the point of outright war responsible for all their admitted evils? And if we do that, isn't that, in itself, a pretty vile collusion with that history? We're helping them to snow their way out of it, and then blaming those who, historically, as we admit, took the right side.