From: skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner)
Subject: Re: Slavery Analogy
Reply-To: g-skinner@uiuc.edu
Organization: UIUC Center for Supercomputing Research and Development
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 21:39:33 GMT

I ended my last post with the observation:

     But those of us (myself included) who would leave the abortion
     choice to individuals must ask ourselves whether we would also
     leave the choice to keep slaves to the individual.  If our answer
     differs, we must be able to clearly explain why.  Arguing "slaves
     are people" will not do, for it is probable that not everyone
     agrees.

I expected some folks would post their clear explanations.
Unfortunately, only one reply that has appeared so far has done so.

Dean Kaflowitz wrote something superfluous.

Galen Hekhuis reminds us that slavery and abortion have different
purposes (he suggests "save the life of the mother" vs. "save the
plantation").  His observation does not make clear to me the
difference, unless of course Mr. Hekhuis feels the ends justify the
means.

Richard Ellermeier notes that a fetus is a physical and financial
drain, while a slave is a financial asset with no physical
consequences.  This explanation misses the point of the slavery
analogy.  At issue are similarities between keeping slaves and
aborting fetuses, not between keeping slaves and keeping children.
He has actually pointed to another similarity:

   Aborting a fetus can improve       Keeping a slave can improve the
   the situation of the mother.       situation of the slave owner.

Hsims@vax.clarku.edu suggests that fetuses are denied personhood by
many, not just "some" (which apparently she interprets to mean "few").
She then presents the "slaves are people, fetuses aren't" argument,
except she substitutes "individuals" for "people".  This argument begs
the question.  To her credit, she does point out what makes the
difference for her: "Leaving a fetus inside a woman subjects her to
all kinds of health problems and risks.  A slave owner faces no such
risks."

In other words, we can outlaw slavery without infringing on the rights
of the slave owner, while outlawing abortion may subject women to
unwanted health problems.  I think (Hsims) makes an argument that may
head in the right direction, though one has to weed through much
superfluous material to find it.

Stephen Mezias suggests the similarities I observed are faulty.  To
back this up he appeals to past and present legal definitions of
property and personhood as they relate to fetuses and slaves.  His
comments do not, however, find fault in my observations.  For example,

>>    Fetus                                 Slave
>>    -----                                 -----
>>    Considered by some to be the          Considered by some to be the
>>    property of the woman.                property of the slave owner.

>The slave was legally the property of the owner.  A fetus is not and
>never has been the property of her mother.

Regardless of their legal status, fetuses are still considered by some
to be the property of the woman, and slaves were still considered by
some to be the property of the slave owner.

J H Woodyatt notes that almost all slave holders considered their
slaves property, while many women do not consider fetuses property.
Again, this does not counter the above observation.

He also would have us believe most abortion abolitionists do not
consider the fetus a person.  I am skeptical, but open to statistical
evidence to the contrary.  The evidence provided is quite poor:

>Evidence of this is that only a small minority wish to
>abolish abortion even in cases of rape and grave threat to the
>mother's health.

Someone who would allow abortion in the case of rape or grave threat
to the mother's health may still consider the fetus a person.

On a final note, I indicated that I include myself among those who
would leave the abortion choice to individuals.  As a result, I am at
a loss to understand why questions such as

    Why do you want to give special rights only to entities that
    occupy the bodies of women?

would be directed to me.  I am, of course, unable to answer.


                                   Gregg Skinner

Newsgroups: talk.abortion