PDA

View Full Version : Slave Ownership & Abortion Rights Advocates are eerily Similar



Libhater
01-08-2014, 09:34 AM
Historically, one of the most difficult and contentious questions our country has struggled over is who should be legally recognized as a full citizen. Originally, the Constitution, for census purposes, defined slaves as being only three-fifths of a "person," legally something less than a full human being. Today, a "fetus" is not considered to be a person, much less a citizen, unless its mother decides it is. Roe v Wade has turned the clock back over 150 years. For through that decision, the Supreme Court has once again re-established the legal principle, based on location and age this time instead of location and race, that the full humanity, and therefore the citizenship, of some can, once again, be denied.
As a result, a "fetus," as was a slave, is legally considered to be nothing more than the "property" of its owner who can free it (let it be born) or destroy it at will, based solely on its "owners" perception of the value of that life to them. This despite that, as before, the"property" in question, after a short time, has its own distinct human DNA, brain activity and heartbeat.

http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40538/


ps: If one is favor of abortion on demand of the will of the mother (presumably all leftists), then it would also be correct to assume that they (all leftists) would be in favor of slave ownership as well. After all, don't leftists want to be consistent with their advocacies for such life devaluing principles?

nic34
01-08-2014, 09:42 AM
Being pro-life doesn’t make me any less of a leftyAbortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies.

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/lifestyle/2012/10/being-pro-life-doesnt-make-me-any-less-lefty

So much for another of lib's "theories".

undine
01-08-2014, 10:00 AM
Abortion was legal when the country was founded and for many years after that.

Libhater
01-08-2014, 10:01 AM
Being pro-life doesn’t make me any less of a lefty

Abortion is one of those rare political issues on which left and right seem to have swapped ideologies.

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/lifestyle/2012/10/being-pro-life-doesnt-make-me-any-less-lefty

So much for another of lib's "theories".


Wow, we found ourselves a lefty who is pro life. Congratulations on that one. Now tell us, would you be or are you in favor of slave ownership? If you are not, then I would begin to think of you as someone who sways more to the right of the politico spectrum then a true lefty who stays consistent with the advocacy for the rights of slave owners and for the rights of women to abort at will.

Mister D
01-08-2014, 10:01 AM
Abortion was legal when the country was founded and for many years after that.

So was slavery.

undine
01-08-2014, 10:04 AM
So was slavery.
Yes. RvW didn't turn the country back 150 years to make a fetus a "slave."

nathanbforrest45
01-08-2014, 10:04 AM
Abortion was legal when the country was founded and for many years after that.


Actually abortion was legal in many states when Roe v Wade was decided. Its a myth that abortion was illegal in this country until then. Its also a myth that there were "back alley abortions" by quack doctors. They were quite common in the form of D&C's in many doctor's offices.

Mister D
01-08-2014, 10:08 AM
Yes. RvW didn't turn the country back 150 years to make a fetus a "slave."

Agreed. It made a fetus sub-human goo to be disposed of at our whim. Yeah, that's progress.

nic34
01-08-2014, 10:14 AM
Actually abortion was legal in many states when Roe v Wade was decided. Its a myth that abortion was illegal in this country until then. Its also a myth that there were "back alley abortions" by quack doctors. They were quite common in the form of D&C's in many doctor's offices.

Illegal abortions were common at one time.
Back-Alley Abortions

The prohibition of legal abortion from the 1880s until 1973 came under the same anti-obscenity or Comstock laws that prohibited the dissemination of birth control information and services.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortions. In the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.1 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#1) Although accurate records could not be kept, it is known that between the 1880s and 1973, many thousands of women were harmed as a result of illegal abortion.

Many women died or suffered serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortions or going to untrained practitioners who performed abortions with primitive methods or in unsanitary conditions. During this time, hospital emergency room staff treated thousands of women who either died or were suffering terrible effects of abortions provided without adequate skill and care.

Some women were able to obtain relatively safer, although still illegal, abortions from private doctors. This practice remained prevalent for the first half of the twentieth century. The rate of reported abortions then began to decline, partly because doctors faced increased scrutiny from their peers and hospital administrators concerned about the legality of their operations.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html

Chris
01-08-2014, 10:19 AM
My question would simply be where does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to define personhood? I would answer, nowhere.


For another interesting article chronicling the question raised n the OP, see Understanding the Slavery-Abortion Analogy (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/12/11683/): "The analogies between slavery and abortion are made to highlight some legal, moral, or political principle thought to overlap both issues. There is certainly room to criticize and debate the merits of these analogies, but critical engagement first requires understanding."

nathanbforrest45
01-08-2014, 10:25 AM
There has been absolutely no reliable data that indicates women were dying from illegal abortions. Many states allowed abortions and doctors were performing abortions in the name of D&C's in those states where they might have been illegal. It is a myth and propaganda that Roe v Wade was necessary to save women from abortions. The purpose of Roe v Wade was to make abortion legal in all states as a Constitutional Right.

nic34
01-08-2014, 10:52 AM
There has been absolutely no reliable data that indicates women were dying from illegal abortions. Many states allowed abortions and doctors were performing abortions in the name of D&C's in those states where they might have been illegal. It is a myth and propaganda that Roe v Wade was necessary to save women from abortions.

That's just not true...

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2506899.html

https://guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

kilgram
01-08-2014, 10:54 AM
Wow, we found ourselves a lefty who is pro life. Congratulations on that one. Now tell us, would you be or are you in favor of slave ownership? If you are not, then I would begin to think of you as someone who sways more to the right of the politico spectrum then a true lefty who stays consistent with the advocacy for the rights of slave owners and for the rights of women to abort at will.
What the fuck nonsense are you saying?

How are you able to such correlation?

And the defense of slavery is closer to anyone defending the corporations than the abortion. That any argument in favor to abortion can be used for slavery.

kilgram
01-08-2014, 10:59 AM
There has been absolutely no reliable data that indicates women were dying from illegal abortions. Many states allowed abortions and doctors were performing abortions in the name of D&C's in those states where they might have been illegal. It is a myth and propaganda that Roe v Wade was necessary to save women from abortions. The purpose of Roe v Wade was to make abortion legal in all states as a Constitutional Right.
I don't know in USA, but in Spain during the period that was illegal abortion, it is during all the Franquism, women went to clandestine clinics and died there, or they went to London, if they could afford it.

Ban to abortion does not prevent abortion. Abortion will be practiced. In worse conditions, but practiced.

undine
01-08-2014, 11:05 AM
Agreed. It made a fetus sub-human goo to be disposed of at our whim. Yeah, that's progress.

Not sure how you would call it progress when in reality it was back to the values of the founders.

Chris
01-08-2014, 11:06 AM
Say illegal abortion is risky. Why does that justify legalizing abortion? What about the risk to the unborn, the slave in the considered analogy?

nathanbforrest45
01-08-2014, 11:10 AM
I don't know in USA, but in Spain during the period that was illegal abortion, it is during all the Franquism, women went to clandestine clinics and died there, or they went to London, if they could afford it.

Ban to abortion does not prevent abortion. Abortion will be practiced. In worse conditions, but practiced.


I hate to be the one to tell you this but the United States and Spain are two different countries and what nonsense went on in Spain did not happen in the United States.

nathanbforrest45
01-08-2014, 11:11 AM
Say illegal abortion is risky. Why does that justify legalizing abortion? What about the risk to the unborn, the slave in the considered analogy?


There is no risk to the unborn. Its simply going to die period.

Libhater
01-08-2014, 11:21 AM
What the fuck nonsense are you saying?

How are you able to such correlation?

And the defense of slavery is closer to anyone defending the corporations than the abortion. That any argument in favor to abortion can be used for slavery.

Perhaps when and if you are able to write recognizable English, then and only then will you be able to understand the English language as it pertains to the usage of analogies. Corporations have absolutely nothing to do with the comparison of the rights of slave ownership to that of the rights of a woman to abort. Reread the OP to get in the game.

Chris
01-08-2014, 11:27 AM
There is no risk to the unborn. Its simply going to die period.



The ultimate risk.

jillian
01-08-2014, 11:44 AM
My question would simply be where does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to define personhood? I would answer, nowhere.


For another interesting article chronicling the question raised n the OP, see Understanding the Slavery-Abortion Analogy (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/12/11683/): "The analogies between slavery and abortion are made to highlight some legal, moral, or political principle thought to overlap both issues. There is certainly room to criticize and debate the merits of these analogies, but critical engagement first requires understanding."

the supreme court has the power to determine whether laws restricting choice violate a woman's constitutional right to govern her own body.

they *could* have said... whatever she wants ... until birth. but that would have been defining personhood
they *could* have said ... no reproductive choice at all... which would have defined personhood.
they chose a middle ground.... because life exists on a continuum from two cells to a baby.

easy peasy.

Libhater
01-08-2014, 12:03 PM
the supreme court has the power to determine whether laws restricting choice violate a woman's constitutional right to govern her own body.

they *could* have said... whatever she wants ... until birth. but that would have been defining personhood
they *could* have said ... no reproductive choice at all... which would have defined personhood.
they chose a middle ground.... because life exists on a continuum from two cells to a baby.

easy peasy.

Simple question for you: Since you believe in a woman's right to abort, would you also believe that a slave owner could have the right
to abort/kill any or all of his slaves since both the fetus and the slave were considered less than a full human being, if considered to be a human at all? Go back to the OP
to study up on the analogy if you must.

Chris
01-08-2014, 12:10 PM
the supreme court has the power to determine whether laws restricting choice violate a woman's constitutional right to govern her own body.

they *could* have said... whatever she wants ... until birth. but that would have been defining personhood
they *could* have said ... no reproductive choice at all... which would have defined personhood.
they chose a middle ground.... because life exists on a continuum from two cells to a baby.

easy peasy.



Yea, an easy dance around my challenge. Certainly, given Marbury v Madison, the Court has taken upon itself opining whether laws violate natural rights. But my challenge was plain and clearly where does the Constitution grant it the right to define what a person is? That it doesn't. And just as clearly and plainly you admit its judicial activism in defining any ground, middle or otherwise.

Thank you.

McCool
01-08-2014, 12:25 PM
Yes. RvW didn't turn the country back 150 years to make a fetus a "slave." That's right. RvW turned the country back 150 years to by providing exit strategies for the irresponsible. Oh, that and to accommodate drive through aborters, as well.

How far we've come since then...

kilgram
01-08-2014, 01:00 PM
I hate to be the one to tell you this but the United States and Spain are two different countries and what nonsense went on in Spain did not happen in the United States.
You are wrong. Yes, they are different countries, but there are always similarities and analogies. And it is one.