History does repeat. Slavery/Abortion EXACT argument different times!?

Question

I'm always amazed how history repeats. The first Pro-Choice movement in the southern states in the 1840-1850's was amazingly the same argument the abortionist uses today: It's acceptable to own a slave..after all it's just a black person. The speaker of the house said: I personally don't own a slave but I would never want to stop another from the free choice of owning slaves. The pro-abortionist say it's ok to murder children..after all it's only a fetus. Many say I wouldn't want an aboration but I don't want to tell other what to do..it's up to them not me. I believe one day children will learn of aboration and be in disbelief that at a time in history it was legal to murder babies..and they called it a choice...just as we look back in horror that another could own another human being..both shocking..both wrong beyond belief..but we allow it in the name of choice. BOTH are really one thing...a lowering of human value! Salvery/Aboration..wrong then and now.
I'd like to hear your views

There is currently up to a 15 year waiting list for people wanting to adopt!

The Pro-Abortionist always say no one wants these children..they are wrong just as the Pro-Slavery movement they (blacks) are exspendiable..let's just kill them! The Slave owner and the pro-abortionist have (as always) the same mind set

Answer 1

That is a very interesting argument. Society has ways to rationalize what they are doing when what they are doing is wrong. They use words like "fetus" and "cells" to make themselves feel better about it.

There IS quite a waiting list for adoption of infants of any color. That is why many go out of the country for it. But to rationalize abortion to say it is better than the child growing up poor is just sick.

We can't eliminate humans that we think will be a burden or unconvenient. "Fetuses" are not just like ants in your cupboard or termites eating up your house. They are human.

One more point: a newborn infant can't survive on it's own either.

Answer 2

Wow. Apparently any comparison argument really can be made, no matter how unrelated the two things are.

A living breathing person is a person. Race doesn't change simple biological processes, or stop someone from having an independent life.

A single cell or cluster of cells cannot surive independently. I don't care what color or race they are. An embryo (pre-viability) cannot survive on its own. It has no life support system other than the mother. So, medically, it is not an independent person. And because medically those cells are not a person, your claim that those few cells are already a human life (not just the potential for one) must be based on religious grounds, which are not valid reasons to enact laws.

Now, you are right in that there is a parallel in the two arguments dealing with not wanting to impose one set of beliefs on others. However, the belief that one group of living breathing people are lesser than another just because of the color of their skin is an irrational distinction, because it is not supported by any scientific or logical basis -- only pure prejudice.

However, the distinction between a living breathing person and a clump of cells that cannot survive on their own (regardless of what they MIGHT someday become) -- that is a medical distinction. The embryo cannot survive on its own, and is thus dependent on the mother as an incubator. And because the mother has to give of her body to incubate those cells, she has every right to choose whether she does so or not.

If science and technology reach the point where that cluster of cells can be safely extracted from the mother's body and incubated in a machine for the entire nine months, then I'd agree that there is no reason to kill those cells. But until then, forcing a woman to carry something in her body and provide life support for it is no different than forcing someone to donate blood, or bone marrow, and potentially no different than forcing someone to donate a kidney.

And I don't see too many people advocating the government has the right to force those kind of donations, even if it means saving the life of some person who is already living and breathing independently. Do we really want the government to have the power to force that?

And once the government starts deciding who can and who cannot be pregnant, what stops them from going down China's path, and mandating abortions or sterilizations for population control? Once personal choice has been lost, then the government can do whatever it wants. That's not a free society.

Answer 3

The big difference there is that black people have social security numbers now, they are now citizens. When slavery existed we were only property, but now we are considered humans. A fetus does not have a life yet by many people. It is arguable, however, I wouldn't think of arguing either side of abortion. There is no argument that says blacks aren't humans and American humans which entitles them to all the things in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (in fact, the oldest human artifacts were found in Africa which means human life might have begun there), but there is an argument whether or not a fetus is a human being. That is the difference.

That was a great comparison there, I never thought of it that way.

Answer 4

You have to remember the pro choices don't respect life; they think a 5 month old fetus is just a dead piece of meat. Also you have to remember that most of them have already had an abortion; so if they thought the way most normal people think; that abortion is murder then they would be made out to be a murder; witch they are; They are sick they have no spirit living in them they are actually dead inside and when they do die they will be cast into outer darkness.

Answer 5

The Catholic church approved of abortions until the 1840's and they changed their minds because of population issues, not because of moral ones!

A fetus isn't a baby and an abortion isn't murder! Actually it is a parasite!

Hell, we allowed families to murder their children that were born up until the turn of the 18th Century! Child abuse laws were not on the books until the 19th Century. The 1st child abuse case was a case called Mary Ellen which was brought under the Cruelty to animal Laws!!

Please stop comparing apples and oranges. A fetus is not slaves, who were often raped by itheir master.

It isn't legal to murder babies. It is legal to have an abortion, whether you like it or not!

Answer 6

You are reasoning by analogy and such reasoning is faulty.

Abortion is legal because the government has weighed the balance of a woman's right to control her own body against the state's interest in protecting the lives of fetuses. In balance, a woman's rights are more important at least until the fetus is able to live outside the womb. Then the balance shifts.

Slavery, however, weighed the slave's right to control his own body against the slave-holder's property right in the slave. But that property right was in the very thing (person) that wanted to be free. There was no property interest because the person could not be owned.

Actually, come to think of it you weren't reasoning by analogy. You had already made up your mind. No "reasoning" went into your argument at all.

Answer 7

That doesn't make any sense. Blacks were fighting for freedom, and so are women. I believe that one day we're going to look back and be shocked that people thought it was okay to decide what other people could do with their bodies.

Answer 8

Yes your right I'm sure you would much rather see these babies be born and tossed in garbage cans or abused as they grow up if they are lucky enough to get to grow up

Answer 9

That is ridiculous. If anything, telling someone their body is not their own to do with as they wish is the same as saying that someone else owns that body!

Answer 10

People have not been able to require a common moral standard from other people.