View Full Version : Reminiscent?

01-29-2009, 10:17 PM
I read on a youtube comment something about abortion I have never though of before. They compared the pro-choice attitude to the pro-slavery attitute of the 1800s.

At fist I thought wait...what? But then it made sense. Of course the two are not the same, but the thinking process behind arguments for abortion are similar to that of the pro-slavery movement.

Pro-ChoiceIt is the mother's choice to do what she want with her own body. She has complete control over it.
SlaveryThe slave owner has the right to do whatever he wants with his property. He has complete control over his slaves.

Pro-ChoiceThe economic status of the US would decrease due to more babies born into poverty.
SlaveryThe economy will suffer without slaves around to run plantations.

There were a few more points but I couldn't remember them. I thought it was pretty interesting. Thoughts?

01-29-2009, 11:47 PM
Scott v. Sandford (http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html)

4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them.

Roe v.. Wade (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/)

Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

Yep, pretty simiilar thinking. "Dehumanize the enemy so it can be killed without guilt," one of those "natural laws" that wilbur misses.