Florida woman forced to give birth to a baby that will die immediately

But you are trying, and failing, to dispute that a big reason for the shift was Civil Rights.

 

Christians are not required / obligated to observe the dietary and sexual abstinence laws established in Leviticus. This was determined in the 1st century by a council of the Apostles and Christian elders meeting in Jerusalem. Paul wrote of it in Acts 15. As apostle to Gentiles he believed circumcision should not be required of male converts to the new faith. Until that time the early Christian movement was considered a sect of Judaism. The council decided it was not and male Gentile Christian converts were relieved from the necessity to undergo the covenantal procedure. Uncircumcised men and females in their families are not obligated to observe the dietary and abstinence laws or other rituals.

 

Until the mid 80's infants and babies under a year endured surgery without the benefit of anesthesia as doctors believed their nervous systems were too immature to feel pain and it was feared anesthesia would harm or kill them. They were given muscle relaxants so they would not thrash about on the operating table.

Infants' Sense of Pain Is Recognized, Finally (Published 1987)

November 24, 1987
Parents don't have to be told that, and many pediatricians don't either. But the contrary belief - that the smallest babies are such primitive organisms that they are oblivious to pain - has persisted for decades among many physicians who have routinely operated on these children with little or no anesthesia.

They did so for the purest of reasons, fearing that potent anesthetics might kill these seriously ill infants.

But now, medical evidence demonstrating the newborn's capacity for pain is building. Anesthesia has become safer, too. And in recent months, various groups have issued policy statements urging painkillers for these infants.

To any parent who has held a newborn, the important questions are not about the pain, but about the medical establishment that took so long to come to the conclusion it has only recently reached. How could a profession dedicated to healing end up inadvertently inflicting needless pain on its tiny charges for several decades? No Pain-Killing Drugs

 

Civil Rights as in the removal of Jim Crow and segregation? Absolutely not.

Civil Rights in the Democratic modern sense in the eyes of people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, probably.

 

Cool. I'll throw my lot in with known racists like Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King, Jr. You can throw your lot in with champions for equality like Andrew Johnson and Jesse Helms.

 

Aren't Sharpton and Jackson relics of the former? Certainly would not describe them as 'modern' in any sense. They are very old and have many outdated views. I bet if you asked them about certain things, they'd probably be closer to your view on them than some 20 year old undergrad. Anyways, why are your two examples of the modern party elderly fossils? These are guys who probably say "the woke stuff goes to far" lol. They aren't on the cutting edge of anything anymore.

 

FDR would definitely be a Democrat. On issues other than race Woodrow Wilson's positions are much closer to that of today's Democratic Party than the today's Republican Party. If race were the deciding issue Wilson would be a Republican.

 

Sorry, it's just history. I know you want to revise it, but that doesn't change what actually happened.

 

I'd actually say this is a fair response, not because Democrats are less racist than Republicans, I think the opposite is true. But if the Democrats are the "pro-minority" party, then Woodrow Wilson would likely seek whatever the major alternative is (the Republican Party).

This is all of course assuming, race issues outweigh really all other issues combined, which I don't think is close to true for a guy like Wilson.

 

Then why did the Black vote start shifting Black around the 1930s, but the Southern vote started shifting Republican in the 70s and 80s?

I'm not the one trying to revise history. You are.

 

Strawman.

 

Fine Nikole Hannah-Jones and Ibram X. Kendi, my point stands.

 

Already said it. Blacks started shifting Democrat in the 1930s because of FDR and the New Deal. Southern Whites started shifting Republican in the 1960s through the 80s due to Civil Rights and other cultural issues. Nixon's southern strategy helped it along. Any reputable historian of modern American history will tell you the same thing. Argue against it all you want, doesn't change what actually happened.

 

Not at all. Jesse Helms and Andrew Johnson both made the claims you did about programs that gave preferential treatment to Black people. Thurgood Marshall and MLK both supported affirmative action. If you look around and don't like your company, try reassessing your stance.

 

Applying justice in these forms was genuinely different in the 1960s than now. The more distant we find ourselves from the Civil Rights Movement, the less justified these policies are.

And it seems as though the prevailing trend is more preferential treatment now. Democrats are today are pretending as though the Civil Rights Movement was yesterday and no progress has been made over the course of 60 years which is ironically feeding racial resentment and division rather than alleviating it.

 

Interesting stance. "Affirmative action is racist, unless I agree with it." The Civil Rights Movement caused a lot of racial resentment and division. Fighting for real equality tends to do that.

 

Well considering that you have repeatedly failed to give me a point in time in which these policies are no longer justified because we have achieved equality in the years in which we've had these conversations, something tells me that you get high off the fight even if the fight is over.

The problem with this is if the fight is over, and you're still advocating "equality" as though it means "pro-minority," at some point, that starts to mean injustice. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we're already there. I think we need to start treating justice as "blind justice." And if we're not already at that point where justice means "blind justice," we're definitely going to get there at one point or another, so it's important to know when we're at that point.

 

Good Lord, you're on a roll with the Strawman Arguments tonight.

 

Earlier in this thread, you called affirmative action racist. Are you now disavowing that argument? You can keep accusing us of making straw man arguments because we're trying to square your incoherent babble, but it's not scoring you any points.

 

How about Professors Richard Johnston and Byron Shafer? They claim that the shift in the South from Democrat to Republican was overwhelmingly not a question of race, but of economic growth.

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’ (Published 2006)

Some working class areas in the South remained Democrat into the 1990s.

As late as 2010, there were still Southern States like Alabama and North Carolina who were voting in their first Republican legislative majorities since reconstruction.

81% of Republicans voted for the CRA of '64. 66% of Democrats voted in favor of the CRA of '64.