Home
http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/06/13/i-dont-personally-like-slavery-but-who-am-i-to-tell-you-what-to-do-with-your-own-property/
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.
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 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.”
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.
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 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.”