I don’t personally support slavery, but I can’t tell you what to do with your own property

Repost from June 13, 2013. I’ll be back to writing new posts on Tuesday, August 6.

A few days ago I made the point that every single argument commonly made in support of abortion is directly parallel to arguments people used to make in defense of slavery. Naturally, this assertion was met with outrage and indignation by a bunch of avid abortion fans. Strangely, not a single one of them could exactly explain WHY my point was invalid, instead opting to whine about it without proffering an actual response. For their benefit, I thought I’d take the time to fully flesh out the comparison between pro-slavers and “pro-choicers.” Behold.

Arguments commonly made in support of slavery and abortion:

Appeal to privacy: “Well, I don’t personally endorse or condone slavery, but who am I to tell someone what to do with their own property?”
Appeal to privacy: “Well, I personally object to abortion, but who am I to tell someone what to do with their own body?”

Appeal to the superseding right: “My property rights come before the rights of a slave.”
Appeal to the superseding right: “My reproductive rights come before the rights of a fetus.”

Appeal to popular sovereignty: “States can decide for themselves if they want slavery. If a state doesn’t like slavery, they don’t have to have it.”
Appeal to personal sovereignty: “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”

Appeal to inevitability: “Slavery has been around for thousands of years, it’s never going to go away. We might as well have a safe and legal system in place for it.”
Appeal to inevitability: “Abortion has been around forever, it’s never going to go away. We might as well have a safe and legal system for it.”

Appeal to faux-science: “Slaves aren’t really people. They aren’t like us. Look at them — they’re physically different, therefore we are human and they are not. They don’t have the same rights as white people.”
Appeal to faux-science: “Unborn babies aren’t really people: they’re fetuses. Look at them — they’re physically undeveloped. Therefore, we are fully human and they are not. They don’t have the same rights as born people.”

Appeal to economic concerns: “The economy relies on slavery. It would be a financial disaster if it ever came to an end.”
Appeal to economic concerns: “The tax base is strained already, most of these babies would end up on welfare. It would be a financial disaster if abortion came to an end.”

Appeal to the courts: “Slavery was vindicated by the Supreme Court in Dredd Scott. It’s already been decided, there’s no point in arguing it. Nine men in robes said that blacks are property, and so that settles it.”
Appeal to the courts: “Abortion was vindicated by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. It’s already been decided, there’s no point in arguing. Nine people in robes said that fetuses aren’t people, and so that settles it.”

Appeal to faux-compassion: “Slavery is in the best interest of Africans. They can’t function in the real world, they need to be protected and guided by the white man.”
Appeal to faux-compassion: “Abortion is merciful. These babies are unwanted. They would have a miserable life. Better to help them avoid it all together.”

Appeal to the Bible: “Slavery isn’t condemned in the Bible. If it’s wrong, Jesus would have specifically said so, but He didn’t.”
Appeal to the Bible: “Abortion isn’t condemned in the Bible. If it’s wrong, Jesus would have specifically said so, but He didn’t.”

There you have it. You’re free to jump onto the same ethical bandwagon as slavers and plantation owners, but you’re not free to hide from the reality of your own position. If you argue for abortion, everything you say on the subject is essentially a mad lib of what a 19th century slave owner would have said to defend his own favorite institution. This may be an inconvenient and upsetting reality, but it’s the reality all the same. Deal with it. But don’t cry about it. You chose to side with baby killing, now you must own it and everything that comes with it.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to I don’t personally support slavery, but I can’t tell you what to do with your own property

  1. Isaac says:

    Anytime white America can downplay slavery they will! The African-American “holocaust” has to be downplayed with comparisons to gay marriage and abortion! Typical Amerikka!

    • Heather says:

      Yeah, um, I don’t think “downplaying slavery” is what is happening here in this post. Rather, Matt is pointing out that we, as a society, have legalized unethical treatment of people both in our national history and currently and is encouraging us to see how significant that is. So, kinda the opposite of what you are saying. But anytime someone can twist a person’s words to imagine they are saying something they are not – oh and throw in a racial card with it too, they will. Typical unwillingness to actually hear because you’re already determined to believe what suits you best.

    • Joshua says:

      For the sake of argument, way more babies have been killed since abortion than African Americans killed during slavery brah. That doesn’t downplay anyone’s pain – just a fact. Read a book, be less cynical.

      • Ms B bently says:

        you’re out of your mind. what makes you think that? because you read it in a book.. no, it’s because all your black friends confided in you right? Puhlease!!!! I can guarantee you there are women in every creed, in every family, around the world who have had an abortion. Some for good reason, some not… but it was their choice to do so! bottom line! that’s what abortion is about. having the right to make these awful decisions. I don’t know a man that wants to be told how to live his life, or what actions to take when it gets too hot in the kitchen. why target women? because most of the time it’s the ‘ones that are afraid of women’ making all the fuss. And yes, women have the capacity to be afraid of other women! so there…

      • Salmo says:

        Actually, no babies have ever been killed in an abortion. “Baby” is an actual word with an actual definition, so can it with the appeal to emotion.

      • Daddy says:

        Salmo, you might want to reevaluate your statement. Allegedly a number of babies (by your definition) have been killed in botched abortion attempts. If you insist on splitting hairs.

      • Josey says:

        Ms B Bentley, but men are being told how to live their life. By a woman who tells him he will never get to meet his child. That will certainly change the course of his life.

    • Lydia Bell says:

      I think the author was making the point that both are equally evil (his belief) although I very strongly disagree. I don’t think it’s a good comparison. Look, I myself would never get an abortion, BUT I think that providing women with a safe way to make the choice themselves ought to be a right. There have been abortions happening for as far back as we can trace. I say NO thanks to “back ally” abortions and coat hangers. And Matt, it isn’t that I don’t understand your stance. I do. I don’t agree with it but I do understand. But taking away protection makes no sense at all. I dislike mainstream pornography politics (A more fair comparison in my opinion) but I would absolutely not want to endanger the lives of millions of porn viewers.

      • Elle says:

        No one wants to endanger the lives of women who want abortions.

        If people were risking their lives to watch pornography would you be on the side of laws that would make it easier for them to do so?

      • Chad says:

        Lydia, do you have any idea how dangerous it is for today’s sex slave traffickers? These poor people have threats from rival traffickers, government agencies, and even slave revolt. They could be beaten, stolen from, jailed, or even killed. Because of this, I guess we should set up a safe and legal way for them to traffic their sex slaves. I mean hey, they’ve been doing it for thousands of years and they will just do it anyways, so it might as well be safe. I don’t like what they do, but we shouldn’t put them in danger either.

      • Lydia Bell says:

        Elle, my point is that when abortions are performed without the supervision of doctors, not one but two lives are at risk (the first being the mother and the second being the fetus for those who believe a fetus is a baby)

        • Daniel says:

          You mean the murderers life is at risk in one case and supposedly not in the other? The child’s life is only at risk because it is willfully and intentionally being targeted for extermination. Abortionists put moms life at risk all the time legally or not.
          Elle’s w question is the whole point. Some women want to engage in risky behavior (sex outside of marriage) and riskier behavior (“unprotected” sex) and riskier behavior (abortion which kills a human child) so do we want to encourage the risky behavior? At the cost of human life?

      • Mike says:

        Why would you never get an abortion?

      • That’s awesome tongue-in-cheek humor right there. You make all of his points and then claim to understand them. That had me rolling. Good show.

        • Lydia Bell says:

          Yeah, it’s this hysterical thing called seeing BOTH sides of an argument, and appreciating an intelligent article whether or not you agree with the overall stand point. But I can understand how two grownups not being ass-holes over such a sensitive subject would be funny to an idiot. thanks for making me smile :)

      • rickchappell says:

        Lydia,
        I think you’re premise ignores some very inconvenient questions. You are going from the point that a fetus is not a baby, and thus entitled to no choice or protection. That philosophy leaves some big holes – when does a fetus become a baby? Only through passage in the birth canal? Or C Section? Or is it time based? 1st trimester? 2nd? Or is it because it can’t survive on it’s own? Wouldn’t that apply to a two year old (some 18 year olds)? Premature survival rates emphasize the problem even more.
        The problem with that philosophy is that it makes an arbitrary decision and justifies life based on it. That’s a pretty dangerous moral ground. Reason would suggest that because there is no absolute way to know, and thus not commit murder, that we have to assume life at conception. Any other point is to justify a point of view which minimizes the taking of life.

        • Lydia Bell says:

          I think you should know that my career is as a therapist, special ed teacher, and caregiver for individuals with special needs. I do have a strong value for life- even life that needs others for basic survival. I do now, however, but a fetus into that same category. I don’t think this is “dangerous moral grounds” but a difference of opinion. If it weren’t then this debate wouldn’t still be #1 in our culture.

    • Isaac, you have no argument, therefore you are trying to appeal to a nonsense argument. Slavery was not the America holocaust, slaves were sold by Afrikkans to anyone that would be them. Every people group on earth has had some form of tragedy and we should ALL learn how to treat ALL people equally. Not one person on earth is greater or of more value than another. Ever.

      • Well said, and there is not white america, black america or any other…it is just America and babies are just babies. And for the ignorant color struck people, abortion kills more brown babies in 3 days than all the years of slavery deaths combined. Planned Parenthood is evil. I do not believe in abortion, at all but sometimes I really do think half of some people should have been a stain on a blue dress in the oval office!

      • Salmo says:

        Planned Parenthood prevents more abortions then any hellfire preacher ever could. Think on that.

    • Elise says:

      You realize, don’t you, that Planned Parenthood was founded by the racist Margaret Sanger, who wanted to promote abortion SPECIFICALLY amongst blacks and other “undesirables”? You DO realize that abortion kills a higher percentage of black babies than any other demographic? In some places (NYC, for one), FAR more black babies are aborted than born. You realize that Planned Parenthood is STILL targeting minority neighborhoods? And you realize that the situation for blacks is STILL not improving, despite the economic “benefits” of prenatal infanticide?
      You realize that Detroit is run by Democrats and has been for EONS? You ever stop to think that maybe liberalism is the PROBLEM, not the solution?

      • Dunn says:

        Elise do you have any good sources for what you said? I would like to know specifically for myself.

      • rickchappell says:

        The Wikipedia article actually has some sources for Margaret Sanger’s interest in eugenics. Her racism and superior race comments are fairly well documented.

  2. ToritoMuttz says:

    I’m just gonna share this on tumblr. http://muttluver.tumblr.com/post/56822819671/arguments-commonly-made-in-support-of-slavery-and
    Watch the hate flow in.

    (Of course, since I said that, there’s a chance it might not. But I have a feeling it will.

    ….sorry, but not really, because this is a good harsh slap in the face worth reading.)

  3. You’re the only blogger who I have ever reblogged, not just once but now twice. Great work!

  4. Reblogged this on Controlled Chaos, Christian Courage and commented:
    Another great blog post.

  5. Daniel says:

    Brilliant, but I would point out the popular sovereignty is actually two points (don’t like it/don’t do it and let the states decide) I’m big on states rights, but not on this issue, states should no more be free to allow the murder of the unborn than enslave men.

    • Matt W says:

      OK, but do you support the limits of federal power such that you understand that the only legitimate way for the federal government to intervene in the matter would be for a Constitutional amendment in the same way 13th amendment was required?

      • History 101 says:

        Actually, Matt, you’re incorrect. The Supreme Court can go against former rulings, especially since they began doing so in the 1960′s. The decisions to remove prayer and the Bible from public schools went against several previous court decisions, and therefore they effectively eliminated the precendent of the court. They pretty much eliminated the legitamacy of the court all together. Thanks progressives!

    • i agree Daniel,
      I belive in states rights and personal freedom as long as it has to do with the rights of the individual. Once you violate the rights of another individual you have committed a crime.

  6. Pat says:

    Brilliant!!!

  7. Massa says:

    If a person is sick and needs your blood, can I force you to give it to him? It’s the last chance this person has!!! No. I can’t, because it’s forcing to do something with YOUR body to help another FULLY-FORMED human being. So even if we take as fully right that fetuses are fully-fledged human beings (which I do not), forcing a woman, against her will, to be a moving incubator is wrong. Very wrong.

    Let me just say that you make these comments because you are a man. If men gave birth, abortion would be sanctioned as correct (nay, almost obligatory) within six months.

    I am a man too, but not a chauvinistic imposer of my truth onto the bodies of other people.

    • Does that really seem like the same thing to you? Scenario 1: The woman makes a choice that (arguably) only affects her. Scenario 2: The woman makes a choice that not only affects her, but affects an innocent bystander unable to protect themselves. A more accurate scenario: The woman commits suicide by explosives in the presence of other people…Yes, I am a woman.

    • Rebekah says:

      As a woman, and a mother of two children, I find your comments ignorant (as a man, you have no understanding whatsoever of what it is to carry a child in your own body) and offensive.

      • Mike Gaines says:

        You’re right, a man will never fully know what it means to be a woman; a white person will never understand what it means to be black; but I find your inability to understand pathos ignorant and offensive. Offensesensitivity!

    • Michelle says:

      Women were BUILT to give birth to babies. It’s our God given privilege. I can’t understand why women (and men) see it as an inconvenience. A baby is not a body part- it’s a full fledged human (as you indicated) and both mother and child have a dignity and beauty in the eye of their Creator and are alive to Him. It’s time to take care of each other instead of seeing each other as an inconvenience.

    • Matt says:

      You mention, “forcing a woman, against her will, to be a moving incubator is wrong. Very wrong.” you are correct sir! The problem is…becoming a moving incubator generally WAS her will. I realize there are exceptions, but the average woman seeking abortion is not pregnant from rape. There is a natural ’cause and effect’ in place here(she is pregnant for a reason). If you don’t want to be pregnant, there are steps to prevent; take them! Instead of stopping a beating heart.

      THAT is truth…and not chauvinistic.

      • texagander12 says:

        Yes! Thank you!

        As if we have this abortion epidemic from all these people who apparently were forced to engage in sex against their will – really?

        Sex leads to pregnancy a good percentage of the time. Surely that is common knowledge, right?

        What kind of depravity ever let us think that the natural end result (that is, actually having a baby) could be made optional?

      • Jamie says:

        First let me offer, I would not, could not have an abortion because of my belief that the child in my belly is more God’s than mine (but mine as well) and because I never want to know the emotional aftermath that would ensue from an abortion.

        I’ve also never felt like I could tell someone else to believe what I do, though I do believe even an atom of an unborn baby has a purpose and life to live.

        I am commenting to say, your remark of “instead of stopping a beating heart” really resonated with me. And I just feel sad for those who’ve felt they had to make that choice of stopping a beating heart. That truly tears me up.

    • Melissa says:

      False

    • Joshua says:

      The rules of logic do not change because of gender. Women happen to have a vote when it comes to convicting rapists. Using your logic, rapists could say “how could SHE understand what a rapists experiences – she has no platform to impose her truth onto the bodies of other people”.

      Your attempt at appearing enlightened is dimming the light.

    • beth says:

      You better take this argument to whomever you believe designed women’s bodies. Women’s bodies are built to carry babies. Human bodies are not built to transfer blood to other individuals. It takes medical intervention to transfer blood from one person to another. Carrying a pregnancy is a natural part of having a female body. There is no comparison to forced donation of blood.

      I am a woman & I do not consider pro-life men to be chauvinistic at all. In fact pro-life men are more often those who would treat a woman respectfully. Pro-life men realize that having sex is a privilege they should only expect when they are ready to father any children that activity produces. It’s the men who want unlimited sex with no responsibility that want abortion as an option.

      • prstewart says:

        - “It’s the men who want unlimited sex with no responsibility that want abortion as an option.”

        Hammer meet nail!!! Or in other words… damn straight it is.

    • Massa, that is such a weak and tired argument. He is saying this because he is standing for what is right and true. The right to murder should NEVER be an option, your rights stop when you enter into a contract to have consensual sex that leads to the development of an individual. There are many preventative measures. If a woman wants to kill her child with a DNC that is a much more humane method than killing her child at 3 months by ripping its tiny body apart.
      What’s the difference between abortion and what Casey Anthony did? At least she gently put her child to sleep. No trauma, she just waited a little later to decide that she did not want to take care of her child. At least her daughter was allowed to run and play for a while right?

      One could also argue that the only reason you are for abortion is because you are man. You do not suffer the depression, sadness and worthless feelings by not fulfilling your natural duty. You just impregnate and move on.

      • Mike Gaines says:

        You really don’t see the difference between abortion and what Case Anthony did? Really? If you were asked to pick out differences, you couldn’t find any? How about that her children where born — you make a big leap calling abortion murder; in fact, the law currently disagrees with you. Not everyone believes life begins at conception. The phrase “one could argue” is just as weak as the one you accuse Massa of making. ONE can argue ANYTHING — it doesn’t make it fact. It still comes down to personal belief; as an American citizen you should respect that. I’m not saying that you have to accept the Pro Choice argument, but as a citizen it’s your duty to find a way to live with those you disagree with. Want to “end” abortion? Educate children; end poverty & starvation; do things that help make the situation better. Maybe then abortion won’t be a necessity for some.

    • Laura Ivansons says:

      Seriously? Because he is a MAN? I am a WOMAN. I am the mother of EIGHT living children and have had a 34 weeks 2 day daughter die and be born still and a 11 week 6 days son lost to miscarriage at home.

      I have seen 8 of my children born alive and two of them born dead. They were ALL babies. I would be more than happy to share with you the pictures of my children that died and did not get to be raised by me on this Earth, if you dare.

      Sex creates life. Life lives in my body and it is my obligation to forgo MY rights to do whatever I want and sacrifice for that child I brought into existence. And please do not argue with me about “rape and incest” because, if given the proper support, many of those women choose to carry those babies and love them because the baby is not at fault for it’s heinous conception.

      Problem really is that everyone wants to be selfish and not give a crap about anyone’s rights but their own. I am not an incubator, I am a mother. I have the ultimate super power: I can grow an entire HUMAN BEING IN MY BODY and feed that baby with my body after birth.

      Perhaps, just perhaps, men should stop saying if a man got pregnant they would do xyz because geez, I find that most men are little better than pond scum you are equating them with. In fact, there are many fabulous men like my husband who agreed to a large family because I wanted it and he is willing to go out to work for us every.single.day.

    • Millie says:

      The fetus, as you call it, has a brain, lungs, a beating heart, fingers, toes, can move, can kick, can get the hiccups, can feel pain. Explain how this is not a person? Once you conceive a child, you have a responsibility to that child, just as the mother who has given birth to a child has responsibility to that child. No one is forcing her to be a human incubator. She made a CHOICE when she engaged in sex. If you don’t want to carry a child, then don’t conceive one.

      I am not a man. But someone who stands up for the rights of a child, born or unborn, is not a chauvinistic imposer of truth. You, however, have a very selfish and skewed concept of what life means. I hope you don’t find yourself in need of someone’s help to live one day. They might just decide that you are inconveniencing them and throw you away.

    • Jenni says:

      This argument won’t hold water with you, because of your stance on “person hood”.

      I’ll make it, anyway.

      Last I checked, it is a fetus’s body. Fetus’s have different DNA, blood type, their own bodies… All moot points to you? Of course they are.

      When is death declared? That’s right, when a heart stops beating. So, why is “life” not a solid declaration when a heart STARTS beating? Because the rules are made up, that’s why.

  8. mark baldridge says:

    do you see that when that “property” is the bodies of others the arguments for abortion rights more closely resemble the arguments AGAINST slavery? THE SLAVE OWNERS WERE THE ONES CONVINCED THEY HAD RIGHTS OVER THE BODIES OF OTHERS. the alternative to the current freedoms is a return to the notion that you can indeed tell woman what to do, not with her property, but with her body. And god, or nature has made procreation dependent on women’s bodies and, therefore, women’s choices. Not your choice, but the individual choice of an individual woman..

    • Daniel says:

      Actually Mark, you have that backwards, it is not that those who value life want control over anothers body. We want those who think they have control of anothers body based on location to quit treating children like a disposable posession. See the anti slave crowd could be accused of wanting control of another persons property from the perspective you set up my property my choice right? The whole basis of the pro abortion crowd is that I own my body and anything that is part of it. A baby is a genetically distinct person and not an extension of the mother thus the only option is to make what amounts to a property rights argument, just like the slave masters.

      • JOshua says:

        here here!

      • celeste27 says:

        If it’s genetically distinct person, then let it survive on its own without the mother. Oh wait, it can’t. When slaves were freed, they were capable of living independently without their owners. They could be set free and walk away from their previous circumstances. If I “set free” a fetus, it would die.

      • Millie says:

        Celeste, there are a lot of people on this planet who are dependent on others for survival. That doesn’t make them less of a person. There are a lot of people who can’t walk away from their situation. That doesn’t make them less valuable as people. And there are a lot of “fetuses” who are killed even after they are developed to a point where they could live outside the mother’s body.

    • Lydia Bell says:

      Mark, I thought that was a fantastic counter argument. Yeah, I just read through all those comments and I still fully agree with you.

  9. Pingback: Manchester Times - Bonnaroo, News, Newspaper, Sports, Business, Entertainment, Engagement, Obituary, Births, Government, Football, Basketball, Baseball, Soccer in Manchester Tennessee, TN

  10. Bob says:

    So many things inaccurate about this. Like assuming that a a fetus is the same as a full grown living human being. I could do the same kind of BS associations that would make women’s rights look like supporting Hitler. This is not sound logic.

    • Joshua says:

      I accept your challenge Bob – why don’t you go ahead and try to make womens rights look like supporting Hitler, post ‘er up in the comments? No, you are confusing your personal emotionally-charged opinion with sound logic – that’s the problem bruh.

  11. Margaret says:

    Ooh! Ooh! Pick me, I have another parallel!
    Appeal to women’s health: “It’s healthier for rich white women to have slaves do all the housework for them, because they are delicate flowers who must not be allowed to overtax themselves.”
    Appeal to women’s health: “It’s healthier for ALL women to be allowed to choose to get safe legal abortions, to avoid risk of death or serious medical consequences.”
    Wait…that didn’t work quite the way you wanted, did it, Mr. Walsh? Maybe you should consider looking at a broader scope of options next time, rather than cherry-picking elements that support your argument (rather like anti-choice, anti-gay bigots tend to do with the Bible–funny, that).

    Next, re: Appeal to superseding right. Pro-choice arguments are not about reproductive rights so much as a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body. Does that now fall under 1) Appeal to privacy? Or perhaps 2) Appeal to faux-science? Oh dear, redundancy. And more issues.
    1) Pro-abortion legislation is actually a very public concept–y’know, applying to the whole country and all. Also public are all the painful stories that have been told to support it, and the sacrifices (even of their lives) made by dedicated doctors to give their patients the services they need.
    2) The issue with your comparison is that slaves were infinitely more similar to their masters than fetuses are to the woman carrying them. I grant you that for many years it certainly was faux-science that justified racism and subjugation of slaves and former slaves. It is not faux-science, however, to detect fetal and/or pregnancy abnormalities that could endanger the life of the mother and/or the unborn child.

    I could keep going and wind my way through all your Appeals in a lovely interconnected sequence of refutations, but it’s past my bedtime and, as a liberal “pro-choicer,” I guess I should get some rest before I work on enslaving more unborn babies tomorrow.

    “Strangely, not a single one of them could exactly explain WHY my point was invalid, instead opting to whine about it without proffering an actual response.” I hope I have helped alleviate that concern.

    • Matt says:

      When you say, ” Pro-choice arguments are not about reproductive rights so much as a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body.”

      That is what YOU make the argument about; Pro-Lifers tend to make the argument about the beating heart inside the womb. It’s strange that medically, when someones heart stops beating (Flatlines) is when that person is declared dead. Why is that the ‘fetus’ heart isn’t given the same status?

      • Margaret says:

        Perhaps I should have been clearer. Yes it it about reproductive rights. It is human reproduction, within the woman’s body. She should still get to decide what to do with her body, even if that means she also gets to make calls about reproduction.

        As for the heartbeat: until about 24 weeks into the pregnancy, the fetus is almost entirely dependent on the mother’s body to sustain said heartbeat and thus its “life.” It’s not a viable creature yet. Once pregnancy reaches about 27 weeks the fetus has about a 90% chance of surviving outside the womb. I still think abortions should be legal at that point, but it becomes a lot more complicated. Abortion is a reasonable option:
        1. If the mother’s life is in danger, unless we’re willing to trade the mother’s heartbeat for that of her unborn child. (If she would like to CHOOSE to do that, okay. But she should have the choice. Once again, it is her body and her life.)
        2. If the baby has a health defect that limits its chance of survival.

        Abortion is not a reasonable option if the mother waited because she couldn’t be bothered to go sooner or just wanted to see how she’d feel later on. But then of course there are concerns about financial resources, incest- or rape-induced pregnancies, and lack of access to an abortion clinic. That gets even more complicated and I’m not even going to try to address it all.

        Last thing – “pro-life” these days is a vastly misleading nickname. Speaking generally (never a safe thing to do, I know), the movement leans more towards pro-pregnancy and pro-birth. I can’t even say it’s anti-abortion because the conservative stronghold often objects to sex education and contraception distribution, when that’s (rather obviously) the most effective way to lower abortion rates. Also, “pro-life” implies respect and care for…well, life. So why is it that once these babies are born, these babies who are “God’s children,” these children whose heartbeats meant so much in the womb, why is it that as soon as they take their first breath, conservatives don’t give a damn anymore? No paid maternal/paternal leave. No support for education. No support for welfare. Pro-life? Hm.

    • Heather says:

      What is “faux science” is when we arbitrarily assign a specific date (say, oh, maybe twenty weeks or so…) to which a developing human becomes a real human whose life is worth keeping.

      Interesting that in your appeal to women’s health you must have completely ignored the fact that less than 3% of all abortions in America are performed due to risk to maternal health. Also interesting that when we say, “women’s rights”, in both scenarios, we exclude a specific class of females from deserving health care – either those with a different skin color, or those who are still developing.

      My the time most abortions take place, that developing fetus already has a beating heart, a functioning brain. It is already able to feel and move and respond to its environment. It has it’s own unique DNA. I could go through a list of qualifications for life and show you how a human embryo meets those criteria. Yet, while we get excited about the discoveries of other various microscopic life forms within the scientific community, we continue to ignore and reject the evidence of human life that is before us because that life is inconvenient. Again, risk to mother or true inability for a fetus to survive accounts for less than 7% of all US abortions. Let’s not use that argument to justify all abortions for all reasons. And let’s not call it scientific when we claim that these babies are not really alive. I call serious BS on that. And anyone who is willing to see it without a personal agenda can recognize it for themselves too – this isn’t rocket science, people.

    • Grandma Debbie says:

      Dear Margaret – as a woman, I have always been and still am pro-choice, but I can’t really understand why you so passionately want to believe that abortion isn’t a killing like any other killing (capital punishment, pest control, etc.). Whether or not a ‘creature’ can exist outside of your body, the fact remains that you must KILL it to prevent its birth. I believe that everyone/thing has the right to defend itself and in that light, in self-defense, abortion might be morally defended. Whatever you and I may think are the justifications for abortion, perhaps if we call it what it is, i.e., a kill, we will have a better chance of having a civil discussion about it. A lot of GOOD people think that killing is immoral – I’ll bet you do, too. Just my own two cents, dear.

    • dap says:

      The “a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body” argument is so lame.

      Should we apply the same logic to men who rape? What right do we have to tell them what to do with their body? Of course the answer would be that their action harms another human being. And the same answer applies to a woman who aborts. Her rights end where the next human being’s rights begin – just as in rape.

      The delusion we allow ourselves is amazing.

  12. texagander12 says:

    Yes! Thank you!

    As if we have this abortion epidemic from all these people who apparently were forced to engage in sex against their will – really?

    Sex leads to pregnancy a good percentage of the time. Surely that is common knowledge, right?

    What kind of depravity ever let us think that the natural end result (that is, actually having a baby) could be made optional?

  13. John says:

    You’re making some interesting connections. As you mentioned, your opposition probably couldn’t point out any reasons your metaphors are invalid because they really aren’t. Now, just because your metaphors are valid doesn’t mean your argument is. You can’t simply say “Your argument is similar (which it IS similar) to that of one for slavery, and since slavery is morally wrong your position is morally wrong as well. There are SO many political positions (regarding laws, bills, programs etc.) that could be argued for based on the fields of religion (which is more heavily referenced by anti-abortionists anyways), economy, right to privacy, and the rest you mentioned. To call every position on a topic immoral when the position is defended in those ways is an absurd fallacy. If pro-lifers/pro-choicers want to come to any moral consensus on the subject they’ll have to stray away from that argument style because it’s absolutely ridiculous.

    -Guy with no particular position on abortion

  14. johnknelson says:

    You’re making some interesting connections. As you mentioned, your opposition probably couldn’t point out any reasons your metaphors are invalid because they really aren’t. Now, just because your metaphors are valid doesn’t mean your argument is. You can’t simply say “Your argument is similar (which it IS similar) to that of one for slavery, and since slavery is morally wrong your position is morally wrong as well. There are SO many political positions (regarding laws, bills, programs etc.) that could be argued for based on the fields of religion (which is more heavily referenced by anti-abortionists anyways), economy, right to privacy, and the rest you mentioned. To call every position on a topic immoral when the position is defended in those ways is an absurd fallacy. If pro-lifers/pro-choicers want to come to any moral consensus on the subject they’ll have to stray away from that argument style because it’s absolutely ridiculous.

    -Guy with no particular position on abortion

  15. Amy says:

    It comes down to convenience. We live in a selfish society. Of course a fetus is life. It was your history. You were that fetus. It’s a human being, it’s a miracle. It’s made in the image of God even if it grows up to defy that God. It’s not a parasite, parasites eat at other life forms, not their own. If a fetus was found on Mars you know everyone would line up to see it protected… People will say anything to justify not inconveniencing themselves. Justifying abortion by any means is just as evil as justifying slavery by any means. I am a woman/mother.

  16. Way to put it all together! We often use these individually in responses but it is nice to see them all together lined up like this. Truth! I will share on our blog too :) http://www.fdfny.org/blog after I get it up I will send you link. Keep holding it down Mr. Walsh.

  17. Casey James says:

    Abortions since Roe vs. Wade: 56,488,169
    Jews murdered by Nazis in WWII: 6,000,000
    hmmm… if God sees fetuses as “real human beings” we are so screwed.

  18. Scotty P says:

    I now have a reference example for the idiom “apples and oranges”. Thank you for setting up such a perfect example.

  19. jamie auernheimer says:

    the logical end of the abortion argument is euthanasia. To say that someone isnt human based on whether or not they can survive independent of care (i.e. the womb or round the clock care/machine) allows for the termination of the elderly or disabled, etc. Life is either sacred or its not. Trying to pick and choose is what led us to the issues we have now. The core issue is the value of life, not a womans right to end it or not. Because make no mistake about it, abortion is ending a life. Following that road to its end opens everyone on the planet up to selective termination. I know people will say that will never happen and maybe it wont, but the logic is there and the trend does seem to be going that way.

  20. Pingback: As Long as we’re Comparing Pro-Choice to Slavery…. | Some Bird

  21. Lydia Bell says:

    http://belllydia111.wordpress.com/ Your blog prompted my own. Please don’t be too too offended! :)

  22. Mary Ethridge says:

    Every comparison made is valid, but doesn’t change the fact that a decision to abort occurs on a case by case basis for more reasons than most of us can possibly imagine. And also ignores that, as women become more educated about their options, and if we make them easily available, they can choose the “after” pill for those moments when they slip up as human beings (ring any bells people?). Allowing freedom for many actions, which means allowing our internalizing of personal consequences vs public, eventually results in the maturing of human beings – ask anyone who has raised a teenager to adulthood. Our punishing culture encourages a “never get over it, ever” ethos that will eventually bring us down in flames rather than allow us to grow and learn as a culture. They very thing we wish to make illegal will eventually be a choice most women can and will turn away from. That’s what maturity looks like, personal or social, but you can’t legislate it. Keep the debate, its part of the process.

  23. Jerald says:

    Nice diversion tactic, but this article bleeds texas sharpshooter fallacy and is utter nonsense.

  24. Ms B bently says:

    what a crock! You complain about puritism, then you go and compare ‘keeping humans as animals’ to a ‘human being making their own decisions in their life’ . God gave mankind free-will to exercise individually, as no one can live another’s life or die for them. Enslaving another human is bogus because all humans are of equal worth. making the decision to have an abortion hasn’t got anything to do with anyone but the decider. There are so many different situations that require the necessity for an abortion the world will never be without them, Any more than we’ll all have to start living without sperm donation facilities, that breed anonymous, random, fatherless kids… or the right to divorce, where families can just go start over and have a new batch of kids, again and again, etc. There are many instances that should probably be monitored and rationed.. but leave it to the spineless and inferior to make a case against women !! If abortion bothers you so much, either don’t have one or start some legislation on forcing men to have vasectomies after either, divorce, rape, incest, multiple dating practices ,drunken/drug induced sex, spiritual ritualistic sex practices, etc..also you should rally for sperm donation to be out-lawed, and invitro-fertilization. But it’ll never happen, because all those things are the rights of men. Leave a womans right alone. You’ll understand when it’s your daughter/mother/sister/wife/friend who has suffered at the hands of fate in some fashion out of her control, or that she isn’t strong enough to live with.. and she’ll find out whether you see her as property or her own human being! We are going to pray you and all other self-righteous people who believe as you say, get that opportunity. It’ll make you better men. -Daughter of God

  25. Amber says:

    I think this is a core reason why some people are against an amendment defining human life as starting from conception. Individual states are still free to write up laws saying that murder of the unborn is legal, but they would still have to face the reality that these are human beings. Once they are forced to realize that these fetuses are human beings, they have to question just what is okay to do with them.

  26. Reblogged this on Blessed With Living and commented:
    Excellent Argument my friend!

  27. missruth1021 says:

    Reblogged this on Conservatism and Bacon and commented:
    I’ve heard every one of these arguments from pro-abortionists and each time it’s taken all that is within me not to reach out and do the “Hello! McFly! Are you in there, McFly?!” knock on their head.

  28. Mike Gaines says:

    I love comparison arguments: Someone does something you don’t like, compare them to Hitler. Can’t honestly back up your position, compare the action to slavery. Your deduction is based on a false syllogism. Slaves were fully formed, walking, talking human beings dragged from their homes (not in utero) and SOLD by and to other human beings — not always white I might add. I am Pro Choice, but I understand the Pro Life argument; however, Pro Lifers refuse to understand that there are those that disagree with their stance that life begins at conception. Furthermore, you lose ground when you demand that women carry babies to term in the case of rape or incest.

    • At Work says:

      Well said. The comments on this article have really had my blood boiling the past two days, but your response was a breath of fresh air.

    • kbee8 says:

      I don’t think anyone disagrees that life begins at conception; obviously it does. That is basic science. What pro-choicers and pro-lifers disagree on, is when that life should have rights.

  29. Rocket Man says:

    Margret, you are no intellectual astronaut.

    You say, “the fetus is almost entirely dependent on the mother’s body to sustain said heartbeat and thus its “life.” It’s not a viable creature yet.”

    I say, “People on pace-makes are not viable creatures.”

    Your use of the word “bigot” evinces the emotional nonsense that has swollen your brain to a logically handicap state. So very handicap as to be blinded to see that the definition of the word is most apt for you on this blog than anyone else.

    • At Work says:

      So what about someone who is on life support – if the family decides to turn off the power, do you still consider this murder?

  30. Alaina says:

    This whole exercise is essentially a logical fallacy. It is an appeal to emotion as well as an ad hominem attack on those who have a different perspective than your own. No one wants to be grouped into a category with slavery, so by saying that to agree with abortion make you somehow complicit to the slave trade breaks with the conventions of creating a coherent logical argument. Additionally, as previously pointed out it is a syllogism. While the arguments may be similar, the circumstances of the situations are not.

    Now as to your argument about the Bible. Anyone who has really read and studied the Bible can see that it is full of contradictions. Even at one point in the Old Testament, the Israelites are commanded by God to slaughter an entire nation of people including women and children. These were not unborn fetuses but living, breathing children. Now how do you reconcile this with the idea that all life is precious in the sight of God? It becomes a difficult task. The truth is that for every passage in the Bible that can be used to condemn a practice there is likely one that can uphold the same practice or nullifies the law on which the condemnation is based.

    Finally, the idea that life is life and abortion would lead to the “murder” of others who are dependent on care. Until a certain stage of development, the human fetus cannot survive outside of the womb. While many may disagree with the terminology, it is essentially a parasite feeding off the mother as its host. It is not that the fetus is dependent on another person for assistance in meeting daily needs; it is dependent on the mother for its very survival. The idea that it somehow leads to the “murder” of disabled persons or the elderly is a slippery slope logical fallacy.

    Because the argument itself is full of logical fallacies the whole argument is negated. I am sorry that your friends were unable to respond in this manner. This is an actual response to why your points are invalid.

  31. Herschel says:

    Brb, guys..

    Gotta get some more popcorn. By all means, keep up the shenanigans in my absence. :)

  32. Think About This One.. says:

    I feel like posting this here, as I didn’t receive any response on another article I posed this question on, and I’m genuinely interested to hear what others have to say in response to it.
    Let’s just say that I have an embryo in a petrie dish in one hand (ready for implantation or what have you) and a fully developed baby in the other. For whatever reason, I have to drop one. Tell me which one I should let go of.

    • Dunn says:

      Well your engaging in an Quid Si Probationem Argumentum(What If Argument) which means it’s irrelevant because it’s a hypothetical argument.

      • Think About This One.. says:

        But really, if one is as pro-life as they claim to be, this should be an impossible question to answer, due to moral obligations, not because it’s a hypothetical scenario.

    • Dunn says:

      I’d like to ask, not for the sake of avoiding your question(I won’t lie, it is a hard question that I cannot answer) but I’d like to ask you why if you are pro-choice do you carry a stance that abortion is moral? Why would you propose such a question to anybody? Because being pro-choice at times can be more moral than pro-life, but I don’t understand exactly your stance because to me you just want to argue.

    • Dunn says:

      But also it is an irrelevant question though, because it’s a hypothetical situation that we would never find ourselves in, unless a pro-choice person had a gun to your head and gave you a petrie dish and an infant. I think the more moral action would to not drop any of them because I wouldn’t be in a position to have to drop one. Which is why your question is irrelevant, why would I have both of these things in my hands? It’s just an attempt to make your position look better with an illogical moral predicament.

    • KevinVH says:

      Let’s just say that I have a ____ baby in one hand and a ____ baby in the other. For whatever reason, I have to drop one. Tell me which one I should let go of.

      You can fill in the blanks with pre-born/born, black/white, boy/girl, whatever you want – of course it’s an impossible question to answer.

    • Alice says:

      This “situation” isn’t any different than if you were carrying two infants. You might be more likely to drop the Petri dish (IF you actually really HAD to make a choice), because you are just more emotionally attached to an infant, but in my eyes, they are exactly the same thing. I would be willing to defend the embryo in the dish as much as I would the infant. Neither can live without someone to care for them.

  33. pcartcath says:

    Very very interesting. I’m religious myself. One of the biblical defenses used against abolitionists was that Jesus mentioned the institution if slavery in some of his parables, he must have been therefore ok with it. In book of genesis, they also assumed that the mark put upon Cain for killing Abel was black skin. So where the bible was concerned a slave owner might feel justified with the bible in both faux compassion and faux science.
    But it’s hard to believe that the book that says that god made of one blood all men for to dwell on the face of the earth intended there to be inequality. The reasoning for slavery or abortion is always shallow self-serving and self-justifying, which is against the whole intent of why the book was written.
    One of the most intelligent comments I ever heard on abortion was that the other side doesn’t try to argue that it’s right, they just argue that you don’t have the right to say that it’s wrong.

  34. Shae says:

    At first blush, the comparison is quite apt/interesting. But I think that it becomes significantly less interesting with a little thought. Many of the appeals made in the article are perfectly valid ways of thinking.

    For example, ““Well, I don’t personally endorse or condone slavery, but who am I to tell someone what to do with their own property?” Atheists might use the exact same reasoning when they say, “Well, I don’t personally endorse or condone religious belief, but who am I to tell someone what to believe?” And that is perfectly fine!

    We also all make use of the same reasoning as “My property rights come before the rights of a slave” when we think “My property rights in my house come before the rights of an intruder.” This is also a perfectly valid way of thinking.

    The next example given is “States can decide for themselves if they want slavery. If a state doesn’t like slavery, they don’t have to have it.” This is obviously ok too! “States can decide for themselves if they want the death penalty, they don’t have to have it.” I’m against the death penalty, so I’m personally grateful that some states have opted out.

    I think a similar example could be made for pretty much every one of the appeals in the article. This isn’t to say that I agree with abortion. I’m just saying that this article isn’t terribly interesting.

  35. shaemcphee says:

    At first blush, the comparison is quite apt/interesting. But I think that it becomes significantly less interesting with a little thought. Many of the appeals made in the article are perfectly valid ways of thinking.

    For example, ““Well, I don’t personally endorse or condone slavery, but who am I to tell someone what to do with their own property?” Atheists might use the exact same reasoning when they say, “Well, I don’t personally endorse or condone religious belief, but who am I to tell someone what to believe?” And that is perfectly fine!

    We also all make use of the same reasoning as “My property rights come before the rights of a slave” when we think “My property rights in my house come before the rights of an intruder.” This is also a perfectly valid way of thinking.

    The next example given is “States can decide for themselves if they want slavery. If a state doesn’t like slavery, they don’t have to have it.” This is obviously ok too! “States can decide for themselves if they want the death penalty, they don’t have to have it.” I’m against the death penalty, so I’m personally grateful that some states have opted out.

    I think a similar example could be made for pretty much every one of the appeals in the article. This isn’t to say I’m in favor of abortion; I just think the article isn’t terribly interesting.

Comments are closed.