From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Slavery and the Civil War (was Re: Quayle on abortion)
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:11:30 GMT


There were also those in the south who risked their lives because they were
anti-slavery.  I have ancestors who did so.  I also have ancestors who fought 
for what they viewed as a right to own slaves.

We often see "history" reported as if most (if not all) of the South was
pro-slavery.  There were many in the South, as I mentioned above, who were
against slavery.  It would appear that most Southerners were actually 
"pro-choice" in their attitude toward the pratice of slavery.  After all, not
everyone could afford slaves, but many fought to preserve that "right".
Likewise, we often see the "history" that the Union was mostly against slavery
which is not totally accurate.  There were many who, because of their racial
views, felt that salvery should be a matter of either states' rights or
personal choice.  It is inaccurate to paint the North as a whole as
"anti-slavery" (IMHO).

The parallels between the arguments for/against abortion and slavery are
closer than many of us allow ourselves to see whether we are pro-,
pro-choice, anti-, or simply undecided about choice.  (I do know 2 people who
actually are undecided about abortion.)  A few examples follow:


pro-       : Abortion and slavery are fundamental "rights" that allow citizens
             to resolve both real and possible financial difficulties which
             might result if this "right" were legislated ajudicated away. 
             Those who take this position are separated from the
             pro-choice position by the fact that they promote rather than
             accept or tolerate the given "right"; usually because they profit
             either directly or indirectly from the practice.

pro-choice : It is neither the federal government's place nor right to restrict
             a citizen's fundamental right to choose.  In one case a "right" to
             choose what "property" to own or not to own; in the other, a
             "right" to choose what is best for their own body.  In neither
             case is there any oppression or crime since neither the fetus nor
             the slave is/was considered a human being.  The entity in
             question cannot survive on its own and is, thus not "human".

anti-      : The entity in question is a human life and, therefore, has rights
             of "its" own which must be considered.


Many of the same inconsistencies are shared by some taking each position as
well.  More examples:


pro-       : While demanding that government stay out of issues
             related to individuals' "rights", there is little if any
             consideration of the slaves' or fetus' "rights".  Money determines
             the morality here.  The definition of "human" and "quality of
             life" are also inconsistent.  (Stephen Hawkin is not "viable"
             left to himself without outside support he would be unable to
             communicate and would starve while laying in his own waste. 
             Life-support is limited in definition to include only
             electro-mechanical devices in a hospital.)

pro-choice : We often here references to "rights" (i.e., that
             which is morally correct) in the same sentence with claims that
             say that there is no absolute right and wrong (i.e.,
             "rights").  In other words, we are told that it is wrong to tell 
             others what is right and wrong even though it's OK for them to
             tell us what is wrong.  Slave owners didn't consider slaves to be
             human enough to have rights, but they did consider them human
             enough to "Christianize" them.  A fetus is not a human, but it is
             worth spending money to research ways to keep "it" alive if it
             must (or accidentally) become a "person" too soon.  Moving a fetus
             a few inches in the right direction (from inside the womb to the
             outside world) makes "it" a human in the delivery room, but human
             waste in the abortion clinic.  Moving a slave a few feet (across
             the proper state line) makes that slave "suddenly" a "human
             being", complete with "human rights".

anti-      : Many who were anti-slavery create(d)/encourage(d) conditions which
             were as bad or worse than those races had experienced as slaves.
             Likewise they do (did) little or nothing to improve the conditions
             created by the elimination of slavery/abortion.


**  The opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my    **
**  employer, or any else for that matter.                                  **