In an attempt to stay neutral, I wanted to pose a comparison and allow you all to discuss it.
While listening to Fred Thompson speaking at the Republican National Convention, something crossed my mind that had not occurred to me before. Allow me to make a simple comparison and I will step out of the way to allow you all to discuss it.
Those who support a Pro-Life platform today are similar to those who were strongly against slavery before and during the Civil War.
Those who support a Pro-Choice platform today are similar to those who strongly supported a States' Rights platform before and during the Civil War.
Why would I make these comparisons? What does it have to do with States' Rights vs. Individual Liberties? Do you agree? Why? Why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I believe that liberals are the ones who support pro choice and probably very liberal thinkers who also supported abolishing slavery years ago. I don't believe the states should be involved in individual liberties such as whom you should marry, what religion you practice or priveledges for certain skin colors.But I do believe that each state should decide (the voters and representatives of that state) if they want to pass certain laws to protect an unborn after a certain point in the pregnancy.
TruCoz, thank you, this is a great post! I will be glad to respond. That is a very good analogy. Yes, I support your idea that people who are Pro-Life would be against slavery, and Pro-choice would be for slavery. Abortion takes away that baby's right to live, and slavery also takes away the slaves right to live. If you take away a persons right to live, it's called murder. There were many instances when negro slaves were murdered by their masters. Either whipped to death or hung. And this was accepted because they were not accepted as "Human Beings", the slave obviously has a spirit, so does the baby's body inside a pregnant woman.
Now, think of pro-choice, the right to take away a human beings right to live, and taking away a negro slaves right to live. This is WRONG! We all have the right to Life Liberty, and the pursuit to happiness. Abortion is by far one of the greatest Immoral acts our nation has ever tried to make lawful. TruCoz... Awesome! This is such a great way of comparing this issue! This should not be a state's right to condone Abortion, It is about that person's Individual Liberties. And should not even be an issue.
So... Liberal minds are confused? Are they suffering from a mental disorder? Who knows!!! :)~
I don't understand the use of "states' rights" in this comparison. One of the main arguments I've read about overturning Roe V. Wade is that it denies individual states the right to criminalize or legalize abortion as they see fit, and that the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide is therefore unconstitutional. In that regard, states' rights becomes a weapon of the pro-life position.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0703/0703state.htm
Furthermore, even in a racial context, "states' rights" was a rallying cry by the pro-life GOP as recently as Ronald Reagan's 1980 speech in Philadelphia, MS, the site of the civil rights murders made famous in Mississippi Burning (the subtext of his usage is hard to dismiss).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_eTDP-CSg
I could also post GOP political adviser Lee Atwater's famous statement on what "states' rights" meant to the GOP's "Southern Strategy" decades ago, but this is all supposed to be G-rated!
And to tie these two together, I don't think you'll ever find anyone who considers themselves of "Confederate heritage" (you know, "the South will rise again!" and such) who also considers themselves pro-choice. None of this is should be a surprise considering the Dixiecrat switch to the GOP during the Civil Rights movement.
I guess my point is that the comparison suffers with the inclusion of "states' rights", which as a political term is being used in ways today that are entirely at odds with the comparison's phrasing. There's just no realistic political time line that allows that sort of reversal, in which abolitionists morph into the states' rights champions we see today.
Excellent posts so far. Very ripe for debate.
Benjamin, high marks for your cogent response and excellent research! That's the quality I'm looking for in a blog.
With regard to the definition of states' rights, I do not mean it in the current, Federalist Society version of the definition, which is mostly Libertarian in nature (hands off government or deregulation). I mean it in the historical sense as it was known before the Civil War.
Prior to the Civil War, states, especially Southern states, were becoming subject to greater powers and influence of the federal government. As we will discuss tomorrow, the federal government began imposing tariffs on Southern goods, which was meant to eradicate slavery by milking the South of its economic power. The South got sick of the interference and seceded from the Union.
The way that relates to a comparison with a Pro-Choice platform is that a Civil War Southern State is an individual agent as a present-day woman is an individual agent. They would like to act for themselves and not have government levy taxes or tariffs on them or tell them that they cannot have an abortion.
FYI, the government's current stance on abortion is to give a woman the right to choose what to do with a pregnancy - wanted or otherwise. Roe v. Wade essentially states that the decision between the woman and her doctor and doesn't involve any form of government control. Pro-Choice advocates are concerned that a conservative Supreme Court will overturn Roe and send the decision to the states. Yes, this is a modern version of "states' rights" but it is not the same definition as used in this argument. Don't sweat...we're going to talk about this in class.
When we first talked about this in class, I'll admit to feeling a bit of anger right when it got brought up. As someone who is pro-choice (but not pro-murder, like Richmond would like to believe) the idea that I would also support slavery is kind of offensive to me. When I say that I'm pro-choice, it's not because I think killing "babies" is a super great thing to do. I'm pro-choice because I feel that medical decisions should be left to a woman (or any person) and her doctor, not the government- and I don't think that is a unique position to have. I can't imagine that many people think that the government *should* have "their hands on our bodies".
As we talked about it in class, I started to understand more what the base of the comparison was, but bringing up issues like slavery in comparison to something like this is bound to cause sparks. It lead to a lively discussion so I guess it worked, though.
Above all, I think that the "pro-choice" v. "pro-life" issue is another divisive one that could do with everyone coming together and working on the root cause- unwanted pregnancy. I think we can all agree that every child should be a wanted child, so we should work towards making sure both men and women alike respect their bodies and are responsible with them. But then- we open up another can of worms. Some people feel that birth control is a form of abortion (while on birth control, a fertilized egg can be prevented from implanting, and if you believe life begins at conception then you essentially just "murdered" your child), so more conservative people may disagree with making birth control available to women- even those who are married.
In the end, I guess my thoughts are that this was a good discussion, but equating slavery to abortion has too many gray areas to work as a perfect comparison.
I think that your coparison is a really good one. I dont think that saying if you are pro-choice you are are pro-slavery but I think that is a really great way to get people to see the way it was viewed then. I think that even now most would say slavery is bad regardless of political party.
I do have to say that I am pro-choice. I beleive that every woman gets to make the choice for her self if she wants to carry a child. I would never encourege the abortion of a child but it is not my decision or anyone but woman that is pregnant.
I feel that this comparison is completely offensive. When I think back to the day of slavery, it was liberal to think that people couldn�t be owned. It�s those same liberals today who are pro-choice and feel that a person has complete dominion over their own body.
I don�t think it�s a very good comparison and when I think about it, it makes me angry. To think that because I�m pro-choice I�m being compared to those who wanted to own another being. I feel that the African American Community would be insulted if their struggle to be seen as human beings instead of a piece of property is being compared to that of an unborn fetus.
I just read your rebuttal Amanda E. When a baby is aborted using the "induced labor abortion" is that murder? Good hell the baby is out of the mothers womb, living, breathing, a life certificate and a death certificate are given to that baby. wow. so yes, pro-choice is murder. Or pro-murder as you say it. I want you to visualize a baby just born from a live abortion, stuck in a dark room, and left there to die. pretty sick. This is what happens when American's are for abortion, it goes to the extreme! If this is true, I am absolutely sick inside that liberals are ok with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foSW-CkWbqI
To me there is not much of a difference between slavery in the fact
> that they are both wrong, morally and physically. First lets start off
> with Slavery, enough said. Putting someone to work, by force, without
> pay, harsh working condtions while being overworked, beatin and abused
> physically and mentally is all wrong, there is no reason that anyone
> should be treated so.
>
> Now abortion, that is even worse than slavery. In abortion you are
> killing an innocent developing human being that has the potential of
> becomming like you and me. No matter how developed or not the baby is,
> its still a person and in my belief a child of God who has the right to
> growing up in this world and to make its own choices.
Post a Comment