Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
The main argument against outlawing slavery was that the slaveowners had a Constitutionally-guaranteed property right in those slaves - they had purchased them for good money, and they had a right to keep them.
The counter was, yes, you have property rights, but you are ignoring the rights that we (the abolitionists) claim are held by those slaves you own.
So, like today, there was an argument over whether someone deserved to be called a "person". And, like today, there were competing rights - to own property, and to live free - that had to be balanced.
And, like today, there was a "wreck their lives" argument - the economy of the South was almost completely dependant on slave labor at that point, and abolition would wreck havoc with an entire economy.
As it worked out, the property rights of the South were eventually deemed to be less compelling that the rights of the slaves to freedom. No one ever claimed that their property rights didn't exist - just that the other parties' rights trumped them. Similarly, while it's certainly not a wonderful situation for the woman involved, I would say that, following intercourse, and a resulting pregnancy, the best balance of the competing rights might lie in letting the kid live.
|
That is a good argument. However, it overlooks a more basic metaphysical argument. Is a fetus a "life" as we conceive of it in political and social terms? I would take the position that a life, in order to be considered in the balance of competing rights, has to be a life in being.
I recognize that there are competing positions and that they too can be supported. But the above position is the one I favor.
