The speaker of the house on Nov 8 1859 gave a speech before a packed house and said the following: I personally do not own a slave BUT I will NEVER stand in the WAY of another mans LEGAL right to OWN a slave. Slavery should be always SAFE & LEGAL. The house erupted into applause!!!!!
These Pro-Slavery representives share the EXACT view that that the Pro-Abortion camps do.........they don't respect human life!
The Slave owners didn't believe the Africans were human...the Pro-Abortion people don't believe a baby is a human.
The first Pro-Choice movement (formed in 1851) used "science" to prove that the black man was sub-human in the EXACT same way the Pro-Abortion use "science" to say babies aren't "real" humans.
We have now murdered 40,000,000 Babies.
As we look back on slavery we can't believe this REALLY happened legally in America...one day I hope we can look back and say the EXACT thing...I can't believe what we did!!
Do you agree?
2007-10-28 02:35:28 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
The Slave-Owners #1 argument against setting the black man free was this: WHO would take care of these ******...after all they can't take care of themselves......EXACT thing the Pro-Abotion people say about babies....in my State we have a 7 YEAR waiting list for adoption...they told Lie's then...and they are still telling LIE'S NOW!
2007-10-28 02:37:31 · update #1
thoughts..........I notice you didn't say which one involves "HUMAN-LIFE"
you are soo typical
2007-10-28 02:47:51 · update #2
I agree with you 100%. The analogy between abortion and slavery is very astute. The thing that modern pro-choice people like to say is that abortion is a right they have under the constitutional right to "privacy". This right to privacy is found nowhere in the constitution, the Supreme Court in 1973 gleaned this right to privacy when they legalized abortion. My question is does my right to privacy include using illegal drugs, illegal pornography, etc? I think it does, after all it is my body and I should be able to do with it anything I choose. Is this not what pro-choice people argue?
2007-10-28 12:54:38 · answer #1 · answered by harry 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a very interesting and persuasive analogy. However, there are a few differences you have overlooked that I would like to mention.
1) The "science" in 1851 deserves to be in quotes. Though we did have some scientific prowess, it is nothing compared to our advancements and abilities today. Science today is able to prolong lives in thousands of unbelievable ways that you would never question. However, when science makes a claim that conflicts with beliefs, people erupt with doubts in the scientific community. This is inconsistent.
2) Leaglized baortion is base on the constitutional right of PRIVACY. It has been proven that abortion falls under the protection of this constitutional right, and until it is proven otherwise there should be no contest based on belief, feelings, religion, etc. We have a seperation of church and state, and our laws are not based on feelings. If this were the case, the basic values of our country's founders would eb completely overrun the conflictin 'belief-based' laws. If there were a majority of psycho killers in the country, the laws against murder would be abolished. We have a constitution for a reason and our lawmakers and leaders are required to uphold it.
2007-10-28 02:53:01 · answer #2 · answered by tink 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree about slavery. But I completely disagree about abortion. There is a vast difference in making slaves of living breathing human beings and aborting a fetus. Yes the fetus would become a living breathing human being if not aborted but, as it is, it can't survive without the woman. And the woman has a right to chose to terminate the pregnancy. And it isn't your business or anyone else's.
2007-10-28 05:27:55 · answer #3 · answered by Beth T 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They're similar in the fact that they both involve free will. Aside from the obvious problems of making abortions illegal (a defunct, underfunded foster care system that kills children being the most obvious), my biggest concern is this:
As incompetent as the government is, do you trust them to tell you what you can do with your body?
After all, your body is supposed to be a temple of God. Therefore, what you do with your body is between you and God. Is the government God? Do you trust any man (or woman) on this earth to act in place of God?
2007-10-28 02:55:53 · answer #4 · answered by squidboy1976 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are talking apples and oranges. One issue involves actual living human beings. The other does not.
2007-10-28 02:44:26 · answer #5 · answered by American Spirit 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋