Page 1 of 1
Slavery And Abortion Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade
#1
Posted 24 January 2004 - 01:43 AM
Slavery and Abortion...A Comparison
Compliments of Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam:
SLAVERY - Although he may have a heart and a brain, and he may be human life biologically, a slave is not a legal person. The Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has made that clear.
ABORTION - Although he may have a heart and a brain, and he may be a human life biologically, an unborn baby is not a legal person. The Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has made that clear.
SLAVERY - A black man only becomes a legal person when he is set free. Before that time, we should not concern ourselves about him. He has no legal rights.
ABORTION - A baby only becomes a legal person when he is born. Before that time, we should not concern ourselves about him. He has no legal rights.
SLAVERY - If you think slavery is wrong, then nobody is forcing you to be a slave-owner. But don't impose your morality on somebody else!
ABORTION - If you think abortion is wrong, then nobody is forcing you to have one. But don't impose your morality on somebody else!
SLAVERY - A man has a right to do what he wants with his own property.
ABORTION - A woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body.
SLAVERY - Isn't slavery really something merciful? After all, every black man has the right to be protected. Isn't it better never to be set free than to be sent unprepared, and ill-equipped, into a cruel world?
ABORTION - Isn't abortion really something merciful? After all, every baby has a right to be wanted. Isn't it better never to be born than to be sent alone and unloved into a cruel world?
1857 - Dred Scott decision
1973 - Roe v. Wade decision
Compliments of Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam:
SLAVERY - Although he may have a heart and a brain, and he may be human life biologically, a slave is not a legal person. The Dred Scott decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has made that clear.
ABORTION - Although he may have a heart and a brain, and he may be a human life biologically, an unborn baby is not a legal person. The Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has made that clear.
SLAVERY - A black man only becomes a legal person when he is set free. Before that time, we should not concern ourselves about him. He has no legal rights.
ABORTION - A baby only becomes a legal person when he is born. Before that time, we should not concern ourselves about him. He has no legal rights.
SLAVERY - If you think slavery is wrong, then nobody is forcing you to be a slave-owner. But don't impose your morality on somebody else!
ABORTION - If you think abortion is wrong, then nobody is forcing you to have one. But don't impose your morality on somebody else!
SLAVERY - A man has a right to do what he wants with his own property.
ABORTION - A woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body.
SLAVERY - Isn't slavery really something merciful? After all, every black man has the right to be protected. Isn't it better never to be set free than to be sent unprepared, and ill-equipped, into a cruel world?
ABORTION - Isn't abortion really something merciful? After all, every baby has a right to be wanted. Isn't it better never to be born than to be sent alone and unloved into a cruel world?
1857 - Dred Scott decision
1973 - Roe v. Wade decision
#3
Posted 24 January 2004 - 10:12 AM
I think there can be more comparisons done with this, and I'd like to get this into the phatmass Reading Room...
I wonder if we could compare polls from that time? Like, "In 1857, 50% of the population believed slavery should be legal. -- In 2004, 50% of the population believes abortion should be legal". Just an eaxample.
I wonder if we could compare polls from that time? Like, "In 1857, 50% of the population believed slavery should be legal. -- In 2004, 50% of the population believes abortion should be legal". Just an eaxample.
#6
Posted 24 January 2004 - 12:21 PM
While I disagree with a few of the comparisons, in the sense of abosolute analogy, I agree with the General idea of slavery and abortion being alagous within the frame work of the legalities of our Country. However, it is dangerous to take the comparison too far, St. Paul told Slaves to be loyal to there masters and happy with there station, ie. slavery was accepted by the early Church. Infanticide was never accepted by the Church and abortion is just infanticide inside the womb.
#7
Posted 24 January 2004 - 10:55 PM
Fantastic post.
Analogies can also be made to laws concerning women in the 19th century. There is a famous case in Canada called the "Persons Case" where the British Privy council overturned our Supreme Court and called us barbarians for our view of women in the law, which is analogous to the non-law of abortion we currently have. You could probably find a similar ruling.
Analogies can also be made to laws concerning women in the 19th century. There is a famous case in Canada called the "Persons Case" where the British Privy council overturned our Supreme Court and called us barbarians for our view of women in the law, which is analogous to the non-law of abortion we currently have. You could probably find a similar ruling.
#8
Posted 26 January 2004 - 01:43 AM
errr. it's a close comparison, but black men were still considered only 3/5 human once set free, and black women were lesser than that.
Don Jon is right too, but the slavery in the U.S. was "said" to be biblically justified by America's Protestant interpretation of Genesis where "Ham and his sons are to be slaves unto their brethren." They used the St. Paul stuff just as back-up.
The slavery in Antiquity was for non-Roman citizens and business, not based on race - that's why the Prot interpretation was bogus.
Overall, nice job Blaze!
Don Jon is right too, but the slavery in the U.S. was "said" to be biblically justified by America's Protestant interpretation of Genesis where "Ham and his sons are to be slaves unto their brethren." They used the St. Paul stuff just as back-up.
The slavery in Antiquity was for non-Roman citizens and business, not based on race - that's why the Prot interpretation was bogus.
Overall, nice job Blaze!
#9
Posted 26 January 2004 - 05:13 PM
Thanks, M. Sigga, but I just found it, didn't write it. I did however read an essay written by a black Pro-life activisit where he, in much more detail, recounts why the LEGAL decision of Dread Scott is similar to that of Roe.
Here the analogy seems to say "Slavery and Abortino" but the shocking thing is Dred and Roe . . .
Here the analogy seems to say "Slavery and Abortino" but the shocking thing is Dred and Roe . . .
#11
Posted 26 January 2004 - 06:09 PM
One must take into consideration that in Biblical times slavery wasn't the same.
And since the Catholic Church has historically opposed slavery as understood in modern terms, it isn't surprising that a personal/private interpritation along side a dose of anti-Catholicism might lend itself nicely to the idea that slavery then means that slavery now is okay (in the same sense of the word).
I think the analogy is quite fitting.
And since the Catholic Church has historically opposed slavery as understood in modern terms, it isn't surprising that a personal/private interpritation along side a dose of anti-Catholicism might lend itself nicely to the idea that slavery then means that slavery now is okay (in the same sense of the word).
I think the analogy is quite fitting.
Page 1 of 1

Sign In
Register
Help



MultiQuote






