Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
One of the strongest arguments raised by the southern slave-owners who fought to keep their slaves was that they had invested lots and lots of money in them, and they owned them - they even had titles, and registries. Any attempt to divest them of their own property was unconstitutional. Taken on its face, alone, that assertion was correct.
They missed the fact that sometimes rights collide, and then we need to decide which one, in justice and fairness, trumps the other.
In that case, it was decided that, contrary to the slave owners' assertions, the slaves were actually people, with their own rights, and a claim of property right had to yield to a right to freedom from slavery.
|
So, am I following you correctly, even if one of these slaves was dependent in some way on a third party woman, it might still be an infringement on that slave's rights for the woman to stick a tube in his/her head and suck his/her brains out? Even if it was more convenient for the woman supporting the slave?
