Do pro-choicers have any arguments that werent used to defend slavery? Its my property The Supreme Court already made its ruling so now you just need to accept it Everyones doing it Its none of your business so leave me alone If you dont like slavery, dont own one The negro doesnt have the same mental capabilities as a normal person like you or me Its not that bad, the Negro doesnt mind, he doesnt know any better Women have a right to Abortion Women need Abortion If Abortion is made illegal it will be devastating to women The Negro is not a person Society is better off with Abortion The fetus will never be equal to the woman Why are you wasting so much energy worrying about negroes? Women know whats best There are a million slaves. What are we going to do with them all if they become freed? If you really dont want me to have an abortion, then pay me money Stop trying to impose your values onto my way of life
You can't win this argument either You never did learn the difference between "born" and "NOT born" or "UNborn" Comparing black people with fetuses is quite racist.
slavery, is forcing someone ":the mother" to do something she doesn't want to do, in this case be a baby making machine if one any better then the rapist if they force a women to give birth to the rapists child? if I need your kidney or you to filter my blood for a year, you mind if the gov forces you to let me use your body? .
Oh here we go again. This false little turd of an argument just won't seem to die. How can one individual, a slave owner, tell another individual, a slave, that they are not an individual? There is no difference between them to speak of. Both are born, independent(in terms of not requiring another individuals body for all life's requirements) persons. With a fetus, which is none of those things, there is a huge distinction that must be completely ignored to even entertain this turd of an argument. The fetus lives inside it's mother, inside another individual. You cannot be an individual if you live inside of an individual, there can be only one. Individual means indivisible, cannot be reduced. The mother is the individual because while a mother can go on living without a fetus, the same cannot be said for the fetus without it's mother's body. It remains a connected dependent part of it until birth which is why that is the point that a fetus becomes an individual itself. In the slavery comparison, both slave owner and slave are individuals. The slaves don't live inside the slave owner, they are not a part of him/her. They are independent(again, using the meaning I explained above) individuals. What this means is, those slave owners you're trying to compare to people who support abortion, were entirely full of (*)(*)(*)(*), just like this argument. The logic used to justify slavery was flawed and incorrect. The arguments were bogus. So while it may seem like similar arguments are used in the abortion debate, the differences are in the context and the reality of the situation. For example, just because using the logic of "cutting it off" would not apply to getting rid of a splinter in your finger, "cutting it off" would apply in cases of gangrene or tumor removal. Same argument, hinged upon the uniqueness of the situations they are used in. It is no different with the slavery/abortion comparison. Similarly, slave owners telling slaves they are not people makes no sense because there were no objective differences between them. Using the same argument regarding a fetus is not the same because there are huge objective differences between a fetus and a born individual. This argument fails by trying to create parallels between two things that aren't parallel at all. It wants to assign the shame and injustice of slavery to the abortion debate, hoping of course that anybody who hears the argument doesn't peak under the hood to find it's full of that smelly stuff we normally donate to the ceramic offering bowl.
One is a Negro, the other isn't. One is born, the other isn't, so what? Slave owners believed that being a Negro was a big distinction. Now pro-choicers are trying to tell us that "being born" is some huge distinction, of such immense importance that the right to life hinges on this one fact. This is a poor argument and you know it. Conjoined twins are not "individuals" either, yet that doesn't mean they don't have rights. The slave was part of the slave owner's estate. The slave was the property of another individual. Yep, but those defending the practice did not want to see reason. Slave proponents genuinely believed their reasons were objective. It was obvious to them the Negro was not like the white men, ergo slavery was justified. Pro-choicers don't want to see the parallel. Yes, women who get abortions don't want to feel shame (but sometimes they do anyway). It is a great social injustice that is going on.
also looks like they are referring to them with the "N" word.... must be one of those old white pro-life voters .
This has been and always will be a failed argument that raises it's head every so often, much like the Nazi argument. The problem with the slavery idea is that it only makes sense if you believe having an abortion is somehow equivalent to owning a human being. The slavery analogy makes much more sense as an argument for choice, not against it. Slavery is about losing ones freedom and personal autonomy over ones body and life. As Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, so eloquently put it: No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother. In addition, laws prohibiting or restricting access to abortion treat women as chattel, enslaving them physically by controlling their bodies and ideologically by subjecting them to the tyranny of an imposed morality. Currently, pregnant women confront increasing threats to their freedom to control their own bodiesespecially those in the low-income communities targeted by racialized anti-abortion propaganda. Women in these communities already face countless barriers to accessing regular health care, health education and contraceptionbarriers that will only multiply as a result of the recent barrage of bills to cut Medicaid and further restrict abortion access throughout the country. Another problem with the slavery analogy is that it can be made to fit both sides of the debate, and as such has no real relevance.
Ah, but there is no liberty without the most fundamental right of all—the right to life ! By necessity, your rights end where someone else's rights begin. As Abraham Lincoln so eloquently put it: “Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail.” Maybe that makes it doubly relevant to the debate.
Both the black person and the non-black person are individuals. That is why there was no validity to the arguments made to justify slavery. Being born is when you become an individual. In this country, individuals have rights. It is the basis for democracy. One person, one vote, etc etc. Prior to birth you're still a part of your mother's body, and she has rights over her body because she is an individual. When you are born, you now have rights over your own body although your ability to utilize them will remain in your parent's hands for quite some time. However, the rights that allow a mother to choose abortion when she's pregnant stop when the fetus inside of her, connected to her, ceases to be so at birth. Because the born child is now an independent entity, \n individual, it now has rights too. Yes they believed that, but they could not logically justify it. This is not the case for a mother and fetus. Neither of the conjoined twins have any rights until birth, at which point they both do. Are you trying to say that conjoined twins are the same thing as being pregnant? Because the mother isn't sharing a body with the fetus, the fetus lives inside of the body of the mother. Yes, that was the way it worked, but that wasn't what I was addressing. The arguments used to justify slavery said that a slave was not a person, not an individual, even though there was no difference between a slave and a slave owner that justified that distinction. In order for the parallel you're desperately trying to establish here to work, the slaves would have to live inside the slave owner, using his body for all of their essential needs. Of course not, reason would have been expensive. That's wonderful and all but it doesn't actually give any credence to the arguments they made. An argument is not more true just because you believe it's true. Because it doesn't exist since this abortion-slavery comparison is done simply to attach the stigma of slavery to abortion. You might as well just come right out and admit it, because it's completely obvious already. Oh there's a social injustice going on alright, and it has to do with one group of folks having the audacity to think they should have rights over another group of people's bodies and healthcare decisions. Shame on you. Didn't your parents teach you the difference between what is yours and what is not?
So they were wrong but now you are right, is basically what you are saying. You might take a look at this old thread: racism, classism, sexism, and now... 'Bornism'
Yes they were wrong and yes I am right, but we're not even talking about the same things. I'm not wrong because they were wrong, and they aren't right because I am right. Don't you see. These two things aren't connected! The only way this logic you're using here works is if I was trying to justify slavery now with the arguments they used then. Which is not what's happening anywhere outside of the mind of a pro-lifer trying to score gotcha points on the internet. And failing.
But they are basically the same type of arguments, just the underlying situation and details have changed.
You know what's the same? Anti-Choicers trying to make slaves out of women, they are just like slave owners....thy want to take away women's rights and turn them into slaves. They want women FORCED like slaves to give birth. Anti-Choicers sure have a lot in common with slave owners, yuppers, exactly the same interests...!
Pro-lifers just want women to take responsibility for the pregnancy. If someone impregnated the woman without her permission that person should be punished.
You: ""Pro-lifers just want women to take responsibility for the pregnancy"" That means , "Pro-lifers want to control women like slaves" What can't you get about women not owing you or any other Anti-Choicer anything.....AND you forget you have a history in this forum that doesn't speak to respect for women as human beings....quite the opposite. That's why Anti-Choicers are more like slave owners, they believe in forcing women to give birth. Pro-Choice is anti-slavery, they want women to be FREE to have a choice.
Wrong, the most fundamental right is the right to consent, NOTHING over rules that right, not even the so called right to life. correct, hence why the female has the right to defend herself against non-consented injuries imposed on her by pregnancy, the fetus is the one infringing her right to consent and injuring her in the process, and what your Lincoln quote has to do with it is anybodies guess. nope, because they cancel each other out, and the pro-life comparison is so very weak.
It's not like slavery because it is only temporary (9 months) and the obligation was triggered by pregnancy. Pro-lifers are not trying to force women to get pregnant. Heck, many women do not even notice they're pregnant until 2 months into the pregnancy.
Regardless of the time span, forcing another person to become less than other people is slavery, especially when it is enforced by the state. Pregnancy triggers no obligation on the females part what so ever, the obligation is for the fetus (as a person) to gain consent to impose itself onto another person, just as you would have to. no one is suggesting pro-lifers are forcing women to GET pregnant, what they are attempting to to is to force them to REMAIN pregnant, which is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, self-defence found under the 2nd Amendment and her right to consent as to who, what, where and when her body is used by another. Even more reason for abortion to be unrestricted.
