I'm going to ask the mods not to move this thread because I posted it here specifically to illustrate a parallel to abortion. I hope you'll allow it to stand so that I can make my point. Thank you in advance. Now onto the thread. When slavery was legal, it was purely a pro-choice issue. No one was ever forced to own a slave. If you wanted one, you got one. If you didn't want one, you didn't get one. Pretty simple and straightforward. Everybody got to choose for themselves what they thought was best for their particular situation. And nobody's rights got stepped stepped on. "But what about the slaves? They didn't have a choice. Their rights were being stepped on." Not so according to the Supreme Court. In Dred Scott v. Sandford (the original Roe v. Wade) they ruled that: So according to the Supreme Court, a slave was property and not a citizen. Thus nobody's rights were being violated. So if slaves have officially been declared property by the Supreme Court and the issue is pro-choice, then what possible argument could anybody make to reject the Supreme Court's ruling other than just to tell people what to do with their own property?
Yawn .. same old fallacies being regurgitated time after time. The slavery one is one of false equivalence, A fetus is not deemed as property ... a slave was Slavery was the institution of forcing people into lifelong servitude . .abortion doesn't The slavery analogy only makes sense if you believe having an abortion is somehow equivalent to owning a human being. End of slavery = abortion fallacy.. End of topic. Funniest of all is that the states most likely to want to ban abortions were the states that fought to maintain slavery.
Not really, it was pro-choice until after the Nat Turner's Rebellion of 1831. After Nat Turner went on a murdering and raping rampage murdering 65 white men, women and children, most southern states made it almost impossible for slave owners to free their slaves. There are thousands of diaries and personal journals that were kept by slave owners from the early 1800's to 1860 and most looked upon slavery as evil and wrong. Most slave owners by the start of the Civil War inherited their slaves from their parents and or grand parents. But because of Nat Turner's actions they were prevented by law releasing their slaves into society. Robert E. Lee inherited his slaves through marriage when his wife's father died and had a hell of a time trying to free his slaves before the Civil War.
Please do show where the Supreme court ruled that fetuses are property, and while you are desperately searching for that non-existant evidence you can also respond to the items your cherry picked responses ignored, and you are even wrong in what you state the Supreme court found in the case, it was Missouri laws that deemed slaves as property not the Supreme Court, THe Supreme Court had "no jurisdiction, when, by the laws of the State, the plaintiff was a slave, and not a citizen.", at that time they had no Federal mandate to over rule the state law as the case was before the 14th Amendment was enacted. Please do learn your own history. How are the applications for law school coming along?
Never going to happen when the person in question doesn't even know about their own legal history. Dredd Vs Sandford - 1857 14th Amendment Ratified - 9th July 1868 In fact it was the Dredd case that partly led to the 14th amendment.
The legalities regarding slavery and abortion are equivalent in nature. You can nit pick things that aren't relevant---but it boils down to this. Slaves were not legal persons, or citizens. Fetus is also a non-person and has no rights within the legal system. The argument FOR slavery was the same argument for the right to abort. "Its none of your business", is basically what it boils down too. But there were people who deemed slaves has more then "things", "property", "subhuman". They deemed them human beings deserving of being treated as human beings. And people who are for life, deem the unborn as human beings.
nit pick The whole OP is a fail for one reason, fetuses have NEVER been deemed, rightly or wrongly, as property unlike slaves ergo for that one simply fact it is a false equivalence.
Actually, slaveholders were "pro-life." They would never have allowed a slave to terminate her pregnancy; they wanted the child born for their own purposes, regardless of the woman's wishes.
Dumbest analogy I have ever heard. Slaves had no choice in the matter and like it or not they were people that should under our system have rights. Pssst, a two day old fetus is not a person.
That is your opinion. Its as wrong as the judges in the 1800's that designated slaves as non-persons.
Wrong, not my opinion, biology makes the difference, one is a fully formed Person the other is not. Laws not matter how stupid do not override science.
Fully formed? That's funny...is that the definition of personhood now? A human being fully formed? Even a newborn would be in trouble over that one. Any child before the age of 18 would have a fear for their life. And slaves were property. They weren't people then...just like the fetus isn't "people" in your eyes.
Fully form Brain, I am sure you have heard of the organ, it is where you as a Person resides, no Brain No Person. As I said, stupid laws do not trump biology, no matter how many times you insist that it does.
no one ever forced anyone to be a slave owner? pro-choice is about deciding what you do with your own body, not making a choice to make someone a slave people are not property, be they women or black people or what not.... .
OK let's try to create a better argument - Under slavery - (October, 1669) ACT 1. "An act about the causal killing of slaves. WHEREAS the only law in force for the punishment of refractory servants resisting their master, mistris or overseer cannot be inflicted upon negroes, nor the obstinancy of many of them by then violent means supprest, Be it enacted and declared by this grand assembly, if any slave resist his master (or other by his masters order correcting him) and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, that his death shall not be accompted by felony, but the master (or that other person appointed by the master to punish him) be acquit from molestation, since it cannot be presumed that prepensed malice (which alone makes murther felony) should induce any man to destroy his owne estate"(ibid.). " http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/projects/gsonnen/page3.html The owner had the right to kill their slave because the slave was their property. Roe vs Wade "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158] " http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO Under abortion - The woman has a right to kill her fetus because it's not a person, it's part of her body. Her body is her property, ergo the fetus is her property. Does that work? Please have mercy I'm just learning how formal debate works.
nope, you just don't like it because it blows the false comparison out of the water. Furthermore the fetus is not a non-person, it has quasi-rights granted post 24 weeks and is protected under UVVA laws from death when the female has not consented. The only fail here is the OP.
