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.
|
An excellent argument...
If women gestated children in a barn or field, the way land owners used slaves.
BUT, alas, women must carry children in their wombs - an infringement on their bodies in no way comparable to Southerner's slave ownership.*
Try again. Your best argument, which you'll never use because you'll get it shoved up your ass here and just about anywhere else a woman could hear it, is to say "I believe a gestating fetus has more rights than the mother in which its gestating."
But you'll never say that, because thats a dead lock loser, and would expose the noxious sexist shitass logic behind 90% of the pro life movement. Ohhh, I just said it for you, didn't I? No, not really... everyone's known the pro life movt inherently devalues women. Who'd you ever think you were kidding?
*I'm not addressing the cheapness of your trying to steal the moral high ground by likening abortion to slavery, which it most certainly is not.
Threaded Mode