Sure they are, a social trial created by the social mores of the country. Don't like it? Obviously, progressives have been working against it since day one. My house is on fire. Well I can't put it out myself anyways, so I should pour gas on it and build it over again. With progressive logic this makes sense. Despite the partisan wankery, there are options for those who carry a child and do not want it. Yet progressives never mention this. Having a child does not ruin one's life. Changes it for sure, but doesn't ruin it. It all lies in the attitude. And progressives have a heinous attitude about children, childbirth, child rearing, and adoption.
Because the majority of 'cheap' contraception rely on the person using them correctly, while the more expensive contraception (such as IUD's - around $800) are out of reach of those that need them the most. Human error involving contraception is one of the biggest causes of unintended pregnancies. A small, but very relevant, study where a group of women were given a choice of contraception with no cost saw around a 50% drop (I can't remember the exact percentage, but can seek the report out if required) in unintended or unwanted pregnancies and an even greater drop in teenage ones .. the majority of the women chose long lasting, "forget about" contraception such as IUD's and slow release hormonally ones
A little strong don't you think .. lumping all and sundry into a pot when in reality you have no idea what ALL progressives attitudes are.
Cool! So then why wasn't slavery solved the same way? And why aren't we more condescending toward those horribly pushy people who fought that big ugly, bloody Civil War in the United States to force people to give up their slavery rights? Your argument still applies here exactly the same way. The solution was incredibly simple. Allow it. If you want a slave, you can get one. If you don't, you don't have to. Stop judging other people and "leave" them be (it's actually "let" them be, but whatever). If you are against slavery for religious reasons, they will be punished by God. If you are against slavery for moral reasons, learn to live and let live. Don't judge other people based on your morality. It's their lives and therefore THEIR choice. Let them make it for [insert deity of your choice]'s sake! Now go ahead and backpedal and contradict the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of yourself. I await your hypocritical rationalization. - - - Updated - - - They hate themselves. Why wouldn't they hate their children too?
As usual the non rational miss the bloody big elephant in the room .. wonder if they will ever see it when the compare slavery to abortion .. nah no chance.
Unifier was really making a good point. The same lame excuses you use to justify abortion being legal, could also be used to justify slavery being legal.
That's ridiculous. I can make the same argument for why I should be allowed to own nuclear weapons as a crime deterrent that I can for why I should be able to own a pistol. Both would serve to protect my personal safety and interests, yet one of those is completely ridiculous and the other is completely sensible. The fact that the same logic is used in both arguments does not make both arguments correct because obviously there's a whole host of reasons why I shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons of my own and a whole host of reasons why I should be able to own a pistol. This is the same dynamic as the abortion/slavery comparison except that those two issues aren't even related to each other. That means the logic applies even less. And I'm not sure where the basis for your assumption that logic used in one unique situation should be able to apply in a completely different unrelated situation even comes from. That's loco son.
The major difference being that they were incorrect when used to justify slavery because the physical and mental realities of the situation contradict the claim. There were no objective differences between the master and their slaves other than perhaps skin color. Contrasted with a fetus/mother, the master and slave might as well have been completely identical. I don't think it's hard to see the major differences between a black slave and a white master(read: there are none) and a mother and a fetus. These are not the same situations, at all. There is no contradiction or breach of logic. There was simply an incorrect use of those types of arguments(if they were even actually used to begin with) for slavery because the entire point of slavery was to bolster the well being of the slave owners. Facts didn't matter because it wasn't a factual argument to begin with. It wasn't logical. It was a practice meant entirely to boost personal gain at the expense of others.
Whether one was more of an easier argument to make than the other is not the point. The point is the basic argument was the same. It was "they aint like us - so they aint got no rights."
But just the fact that they may have been similar sounding arguments does not actually affect how the argument applies to each situation. And in the case of slavery, the "they ain't like us" part was actually fundamentally incorrect. That argument, made in that situation, is wrong. Now if that argument had been made about horses and cows and why they should serve us as our transportation and tasty dinners, it would be factually correct. Horses and cows aren't like people. Same argument, same logic, but it's validity changes based on the facts of the situation that it's applied to.
Have you ever looked at any 3D ultrasound images? So, you are claiming that a human being in the womb is no more a person than is a horse or cow. Is that correct?
Of course. One can't participate in the abortion debate without being inundated with them. No, that was just an example to show the error of that argument used for slavery. It had nothing to do with abortion because slavery and abortion have nothing to do with each other.
The "they aint like us so they aint got no rights" argument is something they both have in common. Isn't it?
Once we pick apart this analogy it clearly makes no sense. Let's take a quick look at history and REAL slaves since apparently this is the new pro-life talking point. So REAL slaves, born human beings are owned by other human beings and are generally forced to perform some sort of labor or other acts without adequate compensation. Black people were once slaves in the US and were forced to work on plantations, if you believe the Bible, the Jews were slaves to the Egyptians and were forced to build the pyramids and other monuments, modern sex slaves, are forced to have sex against their wills with others. So from these examples we see that SLAVES are a group of people who are owned and USED in various ways without adequate compensation for the things they are MADE to do. Now let's take a look at the fetus, something which just is, it exists, it's there and it's doing it's own thing. Biology is just happening and it takes nutrients and develops and grows. Eventually the woman carrying it will be forced by normal Biological behaviors to give birth unless she chooses to stop it by medical or surgical means or if she naturally miscarries. Considering all of this I just don't see how the slave analogy fits in anywhere. In fact if you want to deem anyone a SLAVE in this situation it would be the one being forced to do something they don't want to against their wills without adequate compensation (gestation, labor and childbirth). And even then I wouldn't call the woman a slave unless someone is forcing her to remain pregnant against her will which thankfully in this day and age in most progressive countries she may choose to end her pregnancy if she wants to. On the surface your analogy may seem perfect and unflawed, but please be prepared to have it picked apart tediously and shown for what it really is in the end. And what this slave analogy is is nothing more than complete and total bunk, not to mention demeaning to both women and to those who suffered real slavery.
Analogy: : a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way : the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way How many times do you have to be reminded of the ways the same denials that were used to deny rights to slaves are comparable to the arguments used to deny rights to children in the womb?
Born slaves doing hard labor or being physically tortured are hardly similar to fetuses living inside a womb doing nothing. Also I would argue that pro-lifers want to make women slaves and deny them their legal rights just like slaves.
Nice try but that's not what was being compared - is it. The analogy (comparison) is between two groups of people. One group used the "athey aint like us" argument to deny rights to people of color so they could enslave them. The other group pf people are using the same argument - "they aint like us" - to deny rights and personhood to children in the womb - to keep abortion legal. The analogy is solid.
It is. You want to compare slaves to fetuses? Well then let's talk about what slaves are and what they are made to do. Fetuses are not like slaves in the slightest. They have all the same rights as us, nothing more, nothing less and you know no born human and no unborn human may use another human's body for any reason including survival. No it's not. It's extremely flimsy once we pick it apart.
