From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Slavery and abortion (again)
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:05:28 GMT

Let's think a minute.  I know that is pretty hard for some of you,
but at least nod your head and try to fool other people.

There was no federal law which abolished slavery.  Before some
of you protest, remember, you are trying to at least look like
you are thinking.  There was no federal law which permitted
slavery either.  What actually "freed" the slaves was the overturning
of those covenants and laws that enforced (a rather unnatural)
concept of one person owning another.  

I have stated before that slavery is not possible without law.
I think that is pretty much true.  I doubt you'll find any
statute that enabled slavery per se, yet you will find several
many laws (or agreements, if the term "law" upsets you) that
have lent credence to the notion that one person could be 
owned by another.  Some of these were called runaway slave
laws, some were thinly veiled indentured servitude statutes,
some were called other things.

I have observed a type of red ant (I think I have the colors
right) attacking and "enslaving" a black ant colony.  While
this is often termed a form of slavery in the animal 
kingdom, it is rather different than human notions of 
slavery.  The red ants can neither sell nor barter nor
trade their "slaves" to ants of another colony even
if they are like-minded about the issue.  The concept
of ownership and property is a strangely human construct.
In any event, the example of the ants notwithstanding,
the notion of "slavery" is quite uncommon in nature.

At least one person has emailed me concerning a law 
against "slavery."  I can't deny that such a law might
exist.  However, the vast majority of laws that "ban
slavery" actually make several key notions which uphold
the notion of slavery unenforceable.  Few actually say
that "slavery" is illegal.  As a matter of fact, slavery
is probably quite legal in your locality, it is the    
enforcement of things that go along with human slavery
that will get you into trouble.  I doubt anyone has
been convicted of having a slave, though according to
some mere possession should be against the law.  Usually
someone is arrested and convicted for some other offense
committed while trying to enforce slavery.

One of the reasons why slavery is such a poor analogy to
abortion is that there are people who actually wish to
make laws pinpointing "abortion."  This is not 
alleviated simply by using other terms that mean 
the same thing.  In one instance people are trying to
restrict or ban an entire concept, whereas in the case
of slavery the concept isn't illegal in most places, it
is the implementation of other constraints that is.
If one were to attempt to draw an analogy, one would
have to argue that a ban on abortion could be accomplished
by banning particular medical practices (not abortion or
a synonym thereof).  Parallels simply do not exist, and
this is only one area.  It is not a poor analogy due
to the assignment of risk, or due to moral constraints,
or whatever.  It is a very poor analogy because slavery
and abortion are so fundamentally different.  True,
there are similarities that can be drawn, but attempting
to compare the two and draw any meaningful conclusions
about one based on the other is simply futile.

Of course, another reason is that abortion is quite simply
unique.  (I think that is from the latin "unos," meaning one,
and "equus," meaning horse.  Hence the "one horse" or
unique town.)  There is absolutely no other situation in which
an individual is inside the body of another.  Think about
it a minute.  There is no useful analogy.

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...
Newsgroups: talk.abortion