Excellent shot!
2007-12-19 06:20:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bob N 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are mixing up two legal theories. Roe v. Wade and abortion is not about right to life, it is about private and individual autonomy. The government can not interfere into the privacy of an individual. The government's interest in protecting the child is weighed against the individual rights. As the child gets closer to being able to be sustained outside the womb, the legitimate interest of the government begins to out weigh the privacy of the individual.
Slavery has nothing to do with these concepts. The history of the American legal system is far too long to put here to establish why slavery was abolished. It was based in the religious revolution of the antebellum period and as religion grew from a mere 10-15% of Americans to 80% claiming religion, the morality of equality for all became the central issue. It only came to a head when it did because of the numerous states attempting to enter the union at the same time that the industrial and growth of the market decreased the need for slave labor.
Slavery has to do with equality, abortion laws in this country have to do with privacy interests.
2007-12-19 06:22:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by sweetbearsg2003 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
What constitutes someone as human is a matter of opinion.
If you think it is someone's DNA, or rather the "potential" for becoming what I would call human, that's fine.
I think what defines somebody as human is his personality, among other things - not his DNA. If that were the case then I am killing by the second with the skin cells that shed off me.
You make a very poor comparison with abortion and slavery. I could agree with you that abortion is wrong in most cases, but making the process illegal will cause more harm than good.
2007-12-19 06:18:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by khard 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes. In the past it was perfectly legal to own people. And don't pretend that somehow we're all now some type of enlightened being who would never let it happen again.
And as far as 'part of a human', donate your kidney then try to get it back.
But neither is at all the heart of the abortion debate. The question is when does an it become a human. And that is a philosophical question that you absolutely can not answer.
If you claim it begins at conception you're going to have a much bigger problems than abortions.
1. You have to properly dispose of a human body. It's a crime to do otherwise.
2. 50% of all pregnancies end naturally in the first few weeks often before the woman even knows.
3. That is literally millions of people every year that you have to 'locate' and dispose of.
4. You will quickly fill the prisons with women whose pregnancies aborted naturally.
2007-12-19 06:16:43
·
answer #4
·
answered by tuyet n 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Yes, you can.
Parents basically own their children. A child cannot enter into any legally binding agreement. The parent has to sign for the child to do so. The parent also accepts responsibility for anything the child does. If the child breaks a window, the parent is responsible for replacing it. Of course, there are rights that children have, but the right to be responsible for themselves legally is at 18 years in the US.
Slavery is extending that to others outside your family and doing so for perpetuity. That makes it a different nature than the parent / child relationship. However, you could argue that if you offer your services as part of a contract, you are basically indenturing yourself to who owns the contract, at least for that service. The difference being, of course, that there are ways out of a contract if the contracting person does not live up to his end of the deal.
Rights are not something inherent in you. Any rights you have are granted to you by the government. Some governments offer more rights than others. That's why rights are something that should be fought to have. They aren't granted to you by default and can be taken away. Also, depending on the government, you gain different rights and privileges as you get older. A baby does not have the same rights and privileges as an adult. There is no reason to think a fetus has any more than either.
2007-12-19 06:16:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by nondescript 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Carrying an unborn child is biological. Pure and simple. It has no idea what or who it is. It goes through three stages of becoming a recognizable human being [not in all cases, however]. The first trimester is quite different from the third trimester. I carries the gene grouping of different DNA patterns. It is its own entity. It shares similar characteristics with its biological parents but is its own entity. That is a very generalized statement as I am not a geneticist or scientist.. It becomes a little slave to its parents when it begins to learn.
2007-12-19 06:26:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Tricia R 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
OK, so instead of the mother aborting, she can just give you the fetus and YOU can figure out what to do with it.
something tells me you will have a lot of dead 3 month old fetus's.
to tell someone what they can and can't do with the one human being that each of us owns, ourselves, would also be slavery. how can you deny that?
each person should decide for themselves this issue. to make someone carry and keep an unwanted child is no better than forcing an unwilling mother to have an abortion. both destroy the individuals freedom.
2007-12-19 06:17:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Free Radical 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
A Fetus. is connected to the mother by the umbilical cord.,she breathes and eats for it until it out grows it home and is ready for the world. I am not into DNA so,I can not say on that one.
But I do know :That Motherhood is one of the most precious gift's that God, has ever given to me. My babies have never been a burden only a blessing, I don't have to own them, like they were a commodity, I just love them and want them to be happy good people.. They were conceived in love by my husband and me. I was told I would never have Children,and I prayed for 6 years for one. my prayers were answered, No I can't say I own them, But if I had to buy them , I would have,! then, I guess you could say I owned them. But they were gifts.
Hope you find your answer.
2007-12-19 07:15:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Bee Bee 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The idea that people have natural right did not exist before John Locke.
The right to life, liberty, property, happiness is a noble lie.
It help maintains order.
So if you take God out of the picture anything, even slavery, can be justified.
I personally am against abortion but that is because I am Catholic. Atheist have no problem with murder.
2007-12-19 06:21:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by scholar_wood 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. You can own a part of a human being... for instance- it is common practice these days to store and freeze umbilical cord blood for the express purpose of using its stem cells.
this is far from slavery and I don't see any inconsistency in the law. My wife and I owned our fertilized eggs as we attempted in-vitro fertilization. But, I wouldn't say that we 'own' our daughter that they became. We certainly are (rather proudly) responsible for her well being.
This is interesting mental masturbation, however I don't believe you have found a course of logic here that supports your belief that abortion is murder. Keep trying though.
2007-12-19 06:18:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by Morey000 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
sorry slavery exists here in north america no matter what politicians tell you. they are known liars.
ever hear a voice in your ear that you could not get rid of?
thats supposed to be the voice of God who i-ties call abaddon. It means they can control you or make your lives a living hell of talking you to death any time they want. its a form of slavery. So when a so-called schizophrenic hears voices and later on goes to murder 5 people including 2 cops, he has my sympathy.(that a true story by the way) Lets say he struck a blow for freedom.
2007-12-19 06:21:06
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋