Have you noticed how history repeats itself Slavery 1850/Abortion Now?

Question

It's all how we VALUE a Human life!
In 1850 the Southern Democrat majority leader said: I don't own a slave but I would never want to take away the RIGHT of another who chooses to own a slave. The House majority leader said: They (the blacks) are not fully human, they can't be afforded the same rights as whites. These were the leaders of the first Pro-Choice leaders, they wanted to have the "choice" to own slaves in western expansion.
They didn't not respect human life, namely blacks. We see the EXACT same arugments today when it come to babies...the subject has changed but it's the same issue..LIFE!
Please read the arguments the Pro-slave owners
gave 150 years ago...VERY eerie!!!!
The Pro-Slave and the Pro-Abortion movements
will be forever linked in history...it's all about Life!

Do you agree?

Answer 1

That's interesting. I never thought of it that way. Because an unborn child is not "fully human" a person should have the right to kill them, then because African Americans were not considered "fully human", it should be okay for people to own slaves. Interesting. You're going to get a lot of crap for this question, but not from me.

Answer 2

I completely agree. Both are classes of people that either then, or now, were not considered fully human for reasons of convenience, hence they were not given certain legal rights as those classes of people who were more powerful than they had already claimed form themselves.

Really this is a question of postmodernism. For most people who believe in "Choice" it is not so much about what is right but what they want for themselves and others. Desire vs. ethics seems to be the distillation. And in a society where the majority rules, which is just another form of power, it comes down to might making right. Most sincere ethicists should not think this to be true.

Going back to the subject, it is also interesting to note many people who believed in slavery did not believe blacks to have souls. This is also true of the abortion movement. I often hear them rationalize that the baby is really not alive, nor has a soul till it takes it's first breath.

I think the Church Lady would put it most aptly, "Wellll, isn't that conveeeeeeenient? ? ?"

Answer 3

I see you are still preaching your pro-life nonsense.

I wonder why you have not considered the infant mortality rate. Do some research on the subject and you will see that over 28,000 babies who have been born already die during the first 365 days. They die because we in America do not bother to provide proper health care on a universal basis. Health care is the privilege of the rich and so babies die.

Singapore currently is the world leader on infant mortality rate. If the United States was able to reach their per capita figures it would save 14,000 babies per year.

Now we are not talking about a fetus here. We are talking about actual living babies that people wanted to have. They are dying because of inadequate health care for the poor of America.

We are the richest nation in the world and yet we allow this to happen. People like you push their agenda so heavily all the time, yet could care less about real babies that have already been born.

America should not be getting their *** kicked by 32 out of 33 industrialized nations. We should not be looking with envy at countries like Singapore. People like you are wasting your time and energy on a debate that can never be won. Yet every day 77 babies die needlessly because our country cannot be bothered to save them.

I appreciate your passion, but I put it to you that you are misguided. I say we need to fix the real problems first. Outlawing abortion will simply harm mothers and the poor.

Answer 4

Did you notice that not once in your question, or explanation, did you use the word "FREEDOM?" Now, I don't like to be the wet blanket when it comes to grandiose argumentation, but it seems to me liberty and freedom might have had just a teeny weeny bit to do with it. Don't you think?

And just to re-align our polemic, let's understand that the conservative groups & parties, including many of the churches calling themselves "pro-life" today, were part of the political force IN FAVOR of slavery.

The controversy is not a question of "valuing life" and you know it. It's a much simpler question of a) who the hell told you your definition of human life is mine? and b) who hell are you (again) to tell a woman what she can do with her body?

By they way, were you attempting to besmirch the Democrats with your opening comments? You DO know that the mantle of segregation and Jim Crow politics were gleefully co-opted by the Republicans quite a while ago. It was called the "Southern Strategy." It was based on the resentment the civil rights movement had caused in the South. And in that there IS some irony – consider the probable political affiliation of those who think like you.

Answer 5

How in blue blazes do you equate slavery with abortion.
You're taking context from almost 160 years ago and comparing it to an entirely unrelated situation.
You are doing more harm to your cause by making statements like this because it comes across as ludicrous.

(Faerie, it very well may be... but I'm not going to go back for seconds on this buffet).

Answer 6

JD, I was thinking the same thing. Isn't this what is knows as a Strawman Arguement?

Answer 7

Yes, I have noticed how history repeats itself ... you continue to use this forum as your personal soapbox to dictate utter lunacy to the other members here.

Answer 8

No. How many more times are you going to ask the same question? You are wrong each time you post it.