A History Lesson

Pro slavery Pro choice advocates believed believe that a landowner woman could can do with his her property body whatever he she wanted wants because slaves fetuses were are not persons
Nineteenth century America Twenty-first century America

Published in: on September 9, 2012 at 6:47 am  Comments (5)  
Tags: ,


  1. I don’t think this works logically. Do you want to extend this, and explain how a body can be compared to a plantation and its owner’s property?


  2. Mary, thanks for taking the time to comment. Your question rightly points out that this analogy has limitations. However, I do think it serves a purpose. In our history African Americans were not considered persons. They had no rights, no say over what happened to their bodies, certainly.

    Today the weakest, most vulnerable life is that tiny baby forming in the womb, and we’re saying those little people aren’t people, they do not have even the basic Constitutional right to life, let alone that of liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

    In the 1800s slave owners justified their position because they had bought and paid for their slaves–hence they were property and could be handled however the slave owner chose. We see that today as reprehensible. How could anyone treat another human being that way?

    But we are.

    In those days what slavery advocates valued more than the life of African Americans was their own needs–they needed a cheap work force so they could make the greatest profit. They needed nannies to raise their kids. They needed drivers and maids and stable hands to do the work they didn’t want to do.

    And what do women today want? To avoid the inconvenience of an unplanned pregnancy, to raise only a child of her gender choice, to get rid of an unwanted child without having to give birth and put the baby up for adoption. In other words, like the advocates for slavery, the advocates for abortion are putting their own needs ahead of the life of someone else.

    I don’t see how the truth of that analogy can be ignored.



  3. Becky,

    Great, great post. The analogy is perfect–even down to the politics of which party supports what. The sad truth is that in our country, life begins at convenience.


  4. Thanks for stopping by, Tom. Wow! Life begins at convenience. That’s a sobering statement.



  5. I think it is a good (not perfect) analogy and you were brilliant when you thought of it. Let’s go back one step to the root of why “life begins at convenience”. Ever since Adam and Eve, “life” has been dictated by self-centeredness and intrinsic selfishness. Slave owners were selfish. The “inconveniently pregnant” are selfish. “Inconveniently prospective” fathers are selfish.
    In “I’m Crying On the Inside” you presented two “inconveniently pregnant” people who were selfless, at least in one very important respect. They accepted inconvenience and worse in order to save lives. To be selfless is to be Christlike. Just as the saving of two lives occurred in your posted stories, Selflessness Himself saved our lives too; we, the “inconveniently world-bound fallen”.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: