Pro-Slavery 1850's, Pro-Choice 2006, did they both use same Play-book?

Question

In 1858 The Democratic leader in the House said: I personally don't own a slave BUT I would never stand in the way of another to exercise their LEGAL right to own a slave! Where have we all heard this? This is ALL about how we view HUMAN LIFE, the slave owner felt he could abuse or even KILL his slave because it was HIS legal right, his PROPERTY. The slave owner never viewed SLAVES and REAL-PEOPLE, just as the Pro-Choice people don't view an Un-Born child as a REAL-HUMAN. Their arugemts are EXACTLY the same, both don't respect human life. Both argued Slaves/unborn children could NEVER be cared for if they were set free or allowed to live even though there is a WAITING list for babies in every State. Blacks can take care of themselves..they are BOTH wrong!

Don't allow them to fool us again!

Please read the Slave owners arguments from that time..they are EXACTLY what pro-choice people are saying.

Do you agree?

corygraph.....you are making my argument, "SHOULD the government make a law to out-law slavery yes!...Should the government make a law to out-law killing children..YES!

It's not a choice...it's a baby!

Answer 1

Absolutely !

Answer 2

No. It's like comparing apples and Ford Pintos. Both may be either red or green, but they otherwise have nothing to do with one another.

Granted, there are some similarities. Both the right to choose and the right to own slaves were acknowledged and allowed under the Constitution. So, both could be saying, "I support a person's right to do what is allowed by the Constitution". And that's the quote you have above.

That's where the similarity ends. The pro-choice debate is about whether the government or the individual will make the decisions whether someone can or cannot be pregnant.

Face it: someone is going to choose. It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority (through enacted laws). So, those who are pro-choice are saying that what happens internally to a woman's body is her choice, not the governments.

The slavery argument is entirely unrelated. It's not about who gets to make a personal choice, the person or the government. It's about whether one private individual can own another, with one person compelling the other to serve, and the slave having no say in what happens to them. And in case you miss the most obvious difference, in the slavery situation, both of the people involved are walking breathing thinking human beings, capable of existing and living their lives independently of anyone else.

A collection of cells six or sixteen weeks old is not walking, not breathing, not thinking, and cannot exist independently of the mother. Thus, to force the mother to act as living incubator to the embryo, that's taking away her freedom and her liberty, and saying that her life is subservient to the potential life of the embryo.

So, if anything, it's the pro-life movement that is closest to being pro-slavery. Both believe that one independent human being can be made to serve the interests of another, against their will and without any choice in the matter. That's the definition of slavery.

{Edit} I'm not making your point. You're missing mine. Should the government outlaw slavery? No. Not while the Constitution specifically allows it. If you don't like that, change the constitution. They did. It's called the 13th Amendment.

Should the government outlaw abortion? No. It's not the government's place to make personal decisions about reproduction.

The "it's not a choice it's a baby argument" is one of the more stupid yet emotionally effective I've heard. It is utterly meaningless when you actually look at what people are talking about, but it is great for the sound-bite. Like the Senator who stood up a few weeks ago and announced "It's time for us to decide. Is this America or is it Al-Qaeda". Great line, but utterly moronic for any rational purpose.

And for the record, an embryo is not a baby. It might become a baby in four to six to nine months. But it's not one now. Saying it is one now is like throwing someone in jail for murder now because, if they continue in the direction they're headed, they might commit a murder four to nine months from now. It's an irrational argument. Not that that seems to stop people nowadays.

What you want to say is "it's not an embryo it's a baby". Which is medically incorrect. So, because you can't say that, you compare apples and Ford Pintos again for the sound-bite.

But that has nothing to do with the choice, which is whether the mother is forced to continue acting as incubator for that growing collection of cells. The proper version of that is "it's not a choice, it's a government mandate". And that makes my earlier point.

It's a shame that some people can't really seem to follow the logical arguments enough to even acknowledge the important distinctions being made, regardless of whether they agree with them or not.

Answer 3

I don't think it's a good analogy, but it's probably one out of the right wing playbook. Whatever it takes to persuade!

I agree with having many restrictions on abortion, but not a total ban. As to the slavery thing, it could be said that forcing a woman to carry and bear a child, not allowing her control over her body is a type of slavery, or at least it can be compared to indentured servitude. This is a better analogy to slavery than the one you posit. At least logically. But we're not talking about logic on these bulletin boards are we? Usually I just see unsupported opinions, name calling, profanities...not reasoned debate and courtesy.

Answer 4

First of all, Democrats during the abolitionist movement were the conservatives. Conservatives and Liberals have switched parties several times in history, so let's not get caught up in Democrat/Repuglican. Let's talk about conservatives and liberals.

The Abolitionist movement, led by unapologetic liberals like William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips and Frederick Douglass, was viciously opposed by conservatives in both the North and the South and many abolitionists were murdered or imprisoned.

The Reconstruction of the South following the Civil War was perhaps the boldest liberal experiment in American history, but it was crushed by southern whites who called themselves "The Conservatives" and formed terrorist clubs like the Ku Klux Klan.

The Woman's Rights Convention of 1848 and the subsequent woman's suffrage movement were spearheaded by the indomitable liberal Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Conservatives cried out from pulpits and the halls of Congress against this dangerous attack on "traditional family values." Courageous suffragists would endure 72 years of brutal harassment by conservatives before securing the right to vote.

The noble effort to reform labor laws and protect working class people was led by a diverse group of liberals from Jane Addams to Eugene Debs who were fought every step of the way by conservatives, even when it came to child labor reform!

Finally, during the Civil Rights movement of the 20th century brave liberal Americans, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave their lives in the fight for equal rights for black Americans. Live television coverage exposed the ugliness of the southern conservatives' opposition to Civil Rights.

Conservatives have been on the wrong side of just about every important issue in our nation's history. Sometimes the conservatives have called themselves Democrats and other times Republicans, but the fact remains, no matter what they have called themselves, they have been first and foremost conservatives. I can't imagine where our nation would be right now if it hadn't been for the bravery and patriotism of America's unapologetic liberals!

Answer 5

You have already asked this question. A lot.

Answer 6

NO