Abortion-slavery analogies

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Mr. Collier brought stuff like this up all the time. The only thing I don't recall is what state this took place in. I suspect Alabama, because that's where he was from and where most of what he would bring up took place.

You initially wrote this:

Not forgetting that slaves were also freed and even became part of the family in some cases.

And then wrote this:

There are also instances of a slave being adopted by their owners. Rare, but not unheard of.

All I am asking is for you to proved some attested historical evidence from the antebellum period to support those remarks.


I am not overly interested in what Mr Collier might have said in class.

[rogue06]

You initially wrote this:

And then wrote this:

All I am asking is for you to proved some attested historical evidence from the antebellum period to support those remarks.


I am not overly interested in what Mr Collier might have said in class.

By now you must have realized I don't jump through your hoops. If you are really this curious I suggest you look through that massive library you like to act like you have.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

By now you must have realized I don't jump through your hoops. If you are really this curious I suggest you look through that massive library you like to act like you have.

By now I have realised that you have made another unsupported allegation and are desperately trying to distract from it.

[Bill the Cat]

This just popped into my head, so I'm only starting to ponder it...

It occurs to me that the abortion issue has the potential to be even more dramatically divisive than "slavery," because *each* side kind of views it as slavery.

The Left sees restrictions on abortion as "enslaving" women.

The Right sees abortion itself as treating the unborn as less than human and therefore dispensable, a major aspect of slavery.

In a way, yes. But what's the answer?

[Bill the Cat]

So once more, what attested historical evidence [however rare] do you have to support your comment?

Took me a whopping 10 minutes on Google...

Source: https://adoption.com/wiki/Slaves_and_Adoption

Slavery is one of the most pervasive of human institutions. Until two hundred years ago hardly anyone had any doubts but that slavery was divinely ordained and a perfectly acceptable practice. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. It is mentioned a number of times in the Bible without criticism and was practiced by just about every culture which had the opportunity, was powerful enough, and needed the labor slaves could provide.

In a few cultures, slavery was not a terrible condition for the slaves themselves - they were fairly well looked after, not worked too hard, could have some influence on their owners, and had some opportunity for advancement and even freedom; and there are examples in this list of slaves who were eventually adopted by their owners. But in most cases slavery was degrading psychologically and physically for its victims and morally brutalizing for its practitioners.

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

By now I have realised that you have made another unsupported allegation and are desperately trying to distract from it.

By now, I have realized you are a pedant with a lazy streak a mile wide.

[Gondwanaland]

Given the issues you seem to have with you memory,

*your

Says the person who can't remember from one day to the next if ranking atrocities is acceptable or wrong.

[Gondwanaland]

By now I have realised that you have made another unsupported allegation and are desperately trying to distract from it.

Well there goes the irony meters across the entire eastern seaboard.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Took me a whopping 10 minutes on Google...

Source: https://adoption.com/wiki/Slaves_and_Adoption

Slavery is one of the most pervasive of human institutions. Until two hundred years ago hardly anyone had any doubts but that slavery was divinely ordained and a perfectly acceptable practice. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. It is mentioned a number of times in the Bible without criticism and was practiced by just about every culture which had the opportunity, was powerful enough, and needed the labor slaves could provide.

In a few cultures, slavery was not a terrible condition for the slaves themselves - they were fairly well looked after, not worked too hard, could have some influence on their owners, and had some opportunity for advancement and even freedom; and there are examples in this list of slaves who were eventually adopted by their owners. But in most cases slavery was degrading psychologically and physically for its victims and morally brutalizing for its practitioners.

© Copyright Original Source

By now, I have realized you are a pedant with a lazy streak a mile wide.

And where does that article refer to slaves being adopted by their owners in the antebellum USA? You have provided a link to a Wiki template and the section you emphasised goes to this:

If we say that someone or something has been adopted, we can be conveying a number of different meanings, depending on the context.

The roots of the word "adopt" means to choose, and most uses of the word will convey that sense of choice in one form or another. If we say that someone has adopted a child we're referring to the fact that they have taken a child of other biological parents as their own. Usually this is a legal relationship, though many people will describe a child with whom they share a strong bond as being informally adopted - that is, a child of their heart, if not of the law.

It's not only children who can be adopted. Lawmakers adopt bills into law - that is, they are formally accepted, passed, and put into effect. Highways can also be adopted when a group or business assumes responsibility for cleaning and maintaining a particular section. And when you say you've adopted an idea or a cause, it means that you have embraced it as your own.

In most cases, when we use the word adopted we're referring to the process by which the biological child of one family becomes the legal and/or emotional child of another. Sometimes the individuals involved may be biologically related, as when a grandparent adopts the children of his/her deceased or incapable son or daughter. Other times the relationship may be the outgrowth of another, as with a stepfather who adopts his wife's biological children. In still other cases there may be no connection at all until parent and child meet, such as a husband and wife who travel to China to adopt a daughter. In all these instances, the child is adopted - chosen - taken as one's own, into both the home and the heart.

There is nothing there dealing with the antebellum USA and slaves being adopted by their owners.

The references are inadequate, several are blank pages. The two internt links cannot be reached [at least from where I live]. Or they are irrelevant to the specific topic of antebellum US slave owners adopting their slaves as members of the family. To wit, the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [of which I have a copy] and Staying Power: The History of Black people in Britain.

References

Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, 1993-97 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F.L. Cross. (London: Oxford University Press, 1957) Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by M. Cary, et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949) ("Slaves") Fryer, Peter. Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain. (London: Pluto Press, 1984) Encyclopedia of Religion. 16 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1987) New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, editor-in-chief Geoffrey Wigoder. 7th edition. (New York: Facts On File, 1992) ("Slaves and Salvery") I Was Born a Slave: An Anthology of Classic Slave Narratives, edited by Charles Johnson and Yuval Taylor. 2 volumes. (Edinburgh: Payback, 1999) Colley, Linda. Captives: Britain, Empire and the World, 1600-1850. (London: Jonathan Cape, 2002) Two Internet central sites among many for searching the Web about slavery: "Studies in the World History of Slavery, Abolition and Emancipation." Available at: h-net2.msu.edu/~slavery/search/search.html Yahoo. "Top : Arts : Humanities : History : U.S. History : Slavery." Available at: dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery

See Also: Carver, George Washington Cugoano, Ottobah Douglass, Frederick Equiano, Olaudah Sancho, Ignatius Wheatley, Phillis

.

[Bill the Cat]

And where does that article refer to slaves being adopted by their owners in the antebellum USA? You have provided a link to a Wiki template and the section you emphasised goes to this:

If we say that someone or something has been adopted, we can be conveying a number of different meanings, depending on the context.

The roots of the word "adopt" means to choose, and most uses of the word will convey that sense of choice in one form or another. If we say that someone has adopted a child we're referring to the fact that they have taken a child of other biological parents as their own. Usually this is a legal relationship, though many people will describe a child with whom they share a strong bond as being informally adopted - that is, a child of their heart, if not of the law.

It's not only children who can be adopted. Lawmakers adopt bills into law - that is, they are formally accepted, passed, and put into effect. Highways can also be adopted when a group or business assumes responsibility for cleaning and maintaining a particular section. And when you say you've adopted an idea or a cause, it means that you have embraced it as your own.

In most cases, when we use the word adopted we're referring to the process by which the biological child of one family becomes the legal and/or emotional child of another. Sometimes the individuals involved may be biologically related, as when a grandparent adopts the children of his/her deceased or incapable son or daughter. Other times the relationship may be the outgrowth of another, as with a stepfather who adopts his wife's biological children. In still other cases there may be no connection at all until parent and child meet, such as a husband and wife who travel to China to adopt a daughter. In all these instances, the child is adopted - chosen - taken as one's own, into both the home and the heart.

There is nothing there dealing with the antebellum USA and slaves being adopted by their owners.

The references are inadequate, several are blank pages. The two internt links cannot be reached [at least from where I live]. Or they are irrelevant to the specific topic of antebellum US slave owners adopting their slaves as members of the family. To wit, the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [of which I have a copy] and Staying Power: The History of Black people in Britain.

References

Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia, 1993-97 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F.L. Cross. (London: Oxford University Press, 1957) Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by M. Cary, et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949) ("Slaves") Fryer, Peter. Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain. (London: Pluto Press, 1984) Encyclopedia of Religion. 16 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1987) New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, editor-in-chief Geoffrey Wigoder. 7th edition. (New York: Facts On File, 1992) ("Slaves and Salvery") I Was Born a Slave: An Anthology of Classic Slave Narratives, edited by Charles Johnson and Yuval Taylor. 2 volumes. (Edinburgh: Payback, 1999) Colley, Linda. Captives: Britain, Empire and the World, 1600-1850. (London: Jonathan Cape, 2002) Two Internet central sites among many for searching the Web about slavery: "Studies in the World History of Slavery, Abolition and Emancipation." Available at: h-net2.msu.edu/~slavery/search/search.html Yahoo. "Top : Arts : Humanities : History : U.S. History : Slavery." Available at: dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery

See Also: Carver, George Washington Cugoano, Ottobah Douglass, Frederick Equiano, Olaudah Sancho, Ignatius Wheatley, Phillis

.

Where did Rogue specify Antebellum USA?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Where did Rogue specify Antebellum USA?

He never stated he was not when he made the following remarks in response to my initial comment;

Not forgetting that many slaves were murdered. And that murderous policy towards blacks continued in the South for decades, long after slavery had officially been abolished, to wit, all that Strange Fruit.

He replied with this:

Not forgetting that slaves were also freed and even became part of the family in some cases.

And then this

You do realize that some blacks owned slaves, right? Occasionally some of those slaves were even family members.

And this:

They bought family members as slaves. How much more of slaves being part of the family can you ask for?

There are also instances of a slave being adopted by their owners. Rare, but not unheard of.

And then this.

The case that immediately comes to mind from my High School days was where a family adopted their daughter's best friend -- a slave -- to stay with her. The daughter was apparently one requiring special attention and they wanted the friend to always stay with her. To reduce the risk of her running off, and in hopes of causing her to be more attentive than someone made to do something, they adopted her so they could be "sisters."

If he considered my initial remark was not relevant why did he make all those subsequent posts without pointing out that he was not in fact referring to the antebellum USA?

I would point out that slavery per se throughout recorded human history is a huge topic.

[Mountain Man]

To answer the topic, the slavery argument doesn't work with regards to prohibiting a woman from murdering her unborn child. Slavery implies something that is done against a person without their consent; however, a woman becoming pregnant through a consensual act is not being enslaved because she effectively invited the unborn child in as a guest.

With regards to a woman who becomes pregnant through rape, that is a much tougher situtation, but I stand my position that the evil of rape does not justify the even greater evil of murdering an innocent human life. That said, the woman should be offered every resource necessary for her and her child to succeed at no cost to her, from counseling and support services to medical care for her and her child.

[Bill the Cat]

He never stated he was not when he made the following remarks in response to my initial comment;

He replied with this:



And then this


And this:



And then this.

If he considered my initial remark was not relevant why did he make all those subsequent posts without pointing out that he was not in fact referring to the antebellum USA?

I would point out that slavery per se throughout recorded human history is a huge topic.

Again, the OP topic was not Antebellum USA. You added that as an example. Did you bother asking Rogue if he was specifically referring to the US South, or did you just assume he was going along with your second sentence instead of your first?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Again, the OP topic was not Antebellum USA. You added that as an example. Did you bother asking Rogue if he was specifically referring to the US South, or did you just assume he was going along with your second sentence instead of your first?

I appreciate your loyalty in defending rogue06 but the responsibility lay with him. If I was incorrect then he should have informed me that my reply re US slavery and the treatment of black Americans postbellum was not pertinent to his remark:

Slavery isn't the same as wanton murder.

Yet he never did.

[Mountain Man]

This is how insane liberals are:

During a hearing about abortion, Senator Josh Hawley said, "I'm curious about a phrase you used. You said 'people with the capacity for pregnancy'. Would that be women?" The UC Berkeley Law Professor who was testifying accused him of encouraging violence against transpeople by denying their existence. He asked, "How am I denying the existence of transpeople?" She asked, "Do you believe men can get pregnant?" Hawley very sensibly replied, "No, I don't think men can get pregnant." The professor shot back, "So you are denying that transpeople exist!"



https://theconservativetreehouse.com...enate-hearing/

The reason there will never be any kind of compromise on this issue is for the simple reason that there is no way to compromise between what is rational, and what is clearly irrational.