All of these pro-abortion people get so offended when you say it like it is. They prefer to be called pro-choice, right?
Well, maybe people in the slave day preferred to be called "pro-choice", too.
"I don't agree with slavery, but I am not going to stop you from doing it".
"Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do"
"People are going to own slaves anyway. Might as well make it legal"
It's a good thing the government didn't listen to the "pro-choice" crowd back then, or we would still have slavery! Hopefully, we can quit listening to them now, too.
2007-03-15 09:21:45 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
well said.
BUT
i think the pro-choice stance is more that of 'i dont agree what your saying, but i will defend to the death your right to say it'-voltaire
fyi, jim aka the first poster, slaves werent considered people back then either. the emancipation proclamation only had 'effect' because the pres. could seize property from the enemey (slaves from the south)
2007-03-15 09:27:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Nowhere even close to being a fair comparison.
And there's a big difference between being "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion." "Pro-choice" means you have the option to choose to either have an abortion or not. If you choose not to, that doesn't necessarily mean you're anti-abortion; it means you made the decision based on what was best for you at the time. Of course, if the choice is made to have an abortion, you and your crowd will automatically slap a label on them while making absolutely NO effort to find out why the woman made the choice to begin with.
When it comes to a woman's body, the WOMAN is the one who makes the decision, not the state or the federal government.
What part of that logic don't you and your crowd understand?
2007-03-15 09:47:26 · answer #2 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I vehemently disagree. first of all, slave proprietors have been doing it for his or her very own advances. loose exertions, and so on. It replaced into an entirely distinctive concepts-set. i'm no longer professional-abortion, i'm professional-selection. i think of each and every woman could have a option to no remember if she contains the fetus to term. it extremely is a spiritual debate whilst existence starts in the womb. i for my area sense that till the fetus is attainable exterior the womb, it is no longer a individual. I quite have in no way heard of expert-selection people asserting undesirable infants can not be cared for or are not people. it is fairly approximately possibilities - hence professional-selection. a woman could have an exact to choose if she needs her physique to be affected for 9 months and then supply up the youngster she carried. If it is no longer financially or socially attainable to have a new child, and he or she does not prefer to ask your self daily the place her new child is and how it is doing, she shoul dhave the the perfect option to abort the fetus. it quite isn't a debate on no remember if the cluster of cells in her uterus are alive, it quite is a debate approximately no remember if women have the the perfect option to prefer to get their hair cut back or nails achieved, when you consider that they are additionally in basic terms having cells faraway from their bodies. i think of it is terrible which you may relate slave proprietors to professional-selection supporters.
2016-10-02 04:31:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hahaha!! that's a good one...you can't compare living people with undeveloped fetuses...the Constitution states that rights start at BIRTH...
would African-American people prefer to be here in America or AIDS and diseased and famish ridden Africa?
six million people died in the Holocaust...you don't see many Jewish people using that against people..yet African-Americans can use slavery in an argument...
not offending anyone, just pointing out some double-standards.
2007-03-15 09:33:35 · answer #4 · answered by Paulien 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No they were anti choice. If they gave their slaves a choice they would choose freedom. They wanted to rule their slaves lives kind of like the anti abortion foes.
2007-03-15 09:28:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
well many people back then did have that attitude.
but a fetus is not a person and is not alive. even for those who think it qualifies as 'alive' it has no qulaity of life.
people who were enslaved were alive.
you can't compare apples to oranges
2007-03-15 10:19:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bad analogy dude. You flunked out of logic didn't you. The fascism starts when you try to control their bodies. Much like anti-choicers want to control the bodies of women and force them to be pregnant. It's the same that the Taliban and Al Queda want to do with their women. It's the same as what the slave owners did with their slaves. The Anti-Choice were the slave owners.
2007-03-15 09:30:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
I'm with ya dude! Today's liberals are pro-choice until you make one they don't agree with! Truth is, they want to make our choices for us! When fascism comes to this country, it'll come under the banner of liberalism!
2007-03-15 09:29:38 · answer #8 · answered by texasjewboy12 6 · 1⤊ 5⤋
What a slippery slope you are walking on! LMAO @ you fundies! Big difference here between humans and fetuses. One is alive and one is developing into life.
2007-03-15 09:26:19 · answer #9 · answered by jimvalentinojr 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
No. I think they preferred, Masta.
2007-03-15 09:35:05 · answer #10 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋