The modern national embarrassment equal to slavery
As the nation approaches the Sesquicentennial, one modern American social phenomenon equals slavery in its horror. by Mark Vogl
(libertarian)
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The room was full, in fact to standing room only. The range of age of the audience was from young children to those who may have been great grand parents. There was a buzz in the audience, an excitement, and a shared anticipation. Two of America's greatest patriots were about to enter the room and speak. The men had not been together for more almost 150 years! President Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were about to enter the Regional Arts Center in Texarkana, Texas or Arkansas? Not exactly sure which side of the state line the Arts Center is on.
President Lincoln and Mr. Douglass met three times in the White House during the Civil War. On this night, two men portraying these famous Americans were going to tell us their life stories, and re-enact the meetings between these two men. For about two hours, the audience, half white and half black, sat in respectful silence as aspects of the arguments and struggle our nation underwent were portrayed. Their presentations ended with burst of applause and a standing ovation,America rejoiced.
The national embarrassment of the institution of slavery was the focus of the meetings between these two men. As one sat there listening, one could not help but feel the longing for freedom of abolitionist leader and former slave Frederick Douglass. And the words of Lincoln proclaiming the promises of the Founding Fathers in the founding documents of the young America, a nation barely four score years old rang boldly.
As a southerner, and a descendent of a Confederate soldier, I am faced with the sin which blighted our nation. Yes secession was about more than slavery. Yes, Lincoln's decision to re-enforce Sumter was an act of war. Yes, the entire South, white and black suffered greatly from the hot steel, flames, revenge and rape of northern liberation. But no matter, because the high principles addressed by both Douglass and Lincoln ring true. We were a nation proclaiming that all men were created equal. All men, yes including women, were created equal. Created by a creator. Created by God. All equal..
But not. No there is no slavery today. One aspect of the American Civil War was righteous, the freeing of people brought here as slaves. Yet, 40 million Americans have been deprived of the very first right ...the right to life.
And while I listened to these re-enactors portray men cloaked in the struggle for freedom; I wondered what their feelings would be towards the right to life?
Further, I wondered about those sitting in the room. They cheered loudly the proclamations of equality, and the promise of liberty to all. I wondered if any of those applauding were supporters of the Court decision known as Roe v. Wade? I wondered if hypocrisy filled this room, the same hypocrisy which filled the halls when the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written?
Do you wonder how men could create a nation based on states rights and individual liberty, and yet allow slavery? Do you wonder how that same nation can slaughter the unborn? Is it only because those unborn are silent and unseen that you can allow their souls and their lives to be extinguished without a thought?
We are entering the Sesquicentennial of American Civil War. It is a time when we should reflect on the promise of this new nation. It's a time when we should re-commit ourselves to the wisdom and promise of our Founding Fathers. Orwas the blood shed to end slavery only a farce, an insincere promise to equality for all?
For me abortion is the slavery issue of the modern world. It is the trashing of human life without remorse. It is a national embarrassment equal to, no greater than the embarrassment of slavery.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 23
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mark Vogl only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mark Vogl is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Thank you Mark, doubtful we  have the writings of Lincoln and Douglass in school text books anymore, and the use of Gods name in politics will soon be gone. It's good to hear portrayals of true history is still alive and well in this day and age.
You call yourself a libertarian, and yet you ignore the individual's rights of the mother, who owns herself and has a right to remove any unwanted growths from her body.
There is no comparison between keeping a full grown sentient human being in bondage, and removing a nonscentient growth from a person who does not want them growing on her.
It is a sophist argument to equate an zygote, embryo or fetus, which lives underwater like a fish, and requires a full time life support system, with a full term baby.
Your title for this article pulled me in, as you well considered it, knowing if you put the "a" word in your title, you'd see no readership.
I will not get into an argument with you about when "life" begins because A) my experience with those who have completely closed their minds to reality and become sufficiently unreasonable is like arguing with the wind and is, therefore, futile; and B) natural law and dare I say it, even science, shows us that this entity that you so compassionately call a "growth" begins at conception (look at the fetal charts in any OB's office). Even if one argues that life doesn't "start" until six 6 weeks or more after conception it is still impossible to NOT see the human (yes I said human) development that is obvious in the fetus. I don't know too many growths that have arms, legs, fingers, toes, heads, brains...you get my drift, eh? Even a very early sonogram shows an obvious "baby" growing in the womb. Those who think otherwise have become drunk on the pro-choice, women's reproductive rights, feminist Kool-Aid.
However, I will take issue with you about Mr. Vogl not having any readership of his article IF he had used the "a" word in the title. You obviously have not been keeping up with the latest current events regarding the government trying to pass a little thing called the health care bill. Since you don't know, I will tell you that the little thing called " the a-word" is the very point of contention that has put Obama and the pro-choice Democrats in a complete stranglehold. If not for the a-word issue, the damned thing would have probably already been passed by now.
If you were up on your current events you would also know that this little issue has seized much more than the government's attempt to resolve the health care debaucle. It has divided a nation. In some cases, it is the single issue that prevents hundreds, maybe thousands (or more?) of people from joining a political party or voting for a particular candidate. It has divided families and churches. It is the biggest issue in the fight for Supreme Court Justice seats. It has spawned radical revenge killings of abortion doctors.
It's a pretty big issue, in other words, in which a pretty significant number of people are interested. So to say that Mr. Vogl would have no readership had he not so underhandedly "pulled" people in by manipulating the title before going in for the kill is a bit, well, naive. Don'tcha think?
Mark, I am incredibly impressed with your analogy of slavery to abortion. For many years I have shown that the same rhetoric used to justify slavery is used today to justify abortion. "It's my land, I can do as I please", "If you think slavery is wrong than don't own slaves, but who are you to tell me what I can and can't do on my own land", and "They are not complete humans and therefore are not entitled to the same rights as other humans". Anyone can be convinced of anything, as was proven in the Holocaust and in slavery. We've convinced society that the fetus is not a unique human being blessed with the same inalienable rights as any other human.
Abortion is the fight between who has jurisdiction to a woman's womb. The baby, for a period, must reside in the woman's womb in order to grow. So does a woman's right to her womb for those few months trump the right of a human being to their very life? A woman does not have to change her life once a baby is born. She doesn't have to raise it, care for it, feed it, leave her career over it, etc. She can give the baby away the second that baby is born with no criminal or civil liabilities. She can leave it on the steps of a hospital or police station and never face any charges.
So, a woman, being a woman, might find herself with a pregnancy that she didn't expect. Biology has determined that, by definition of being a woman, this may happen. So does she have the right to destroy and murder this human simply because it is a burden or she has decided it isn't a human being.
So many people don't see the similarities between slavery and abortion. It's the justification that despite all the scientific evidence in front of you, a unique human being is not really a human being because of some arbitrary decision based on emotion. I want a slave to do my work so this black man is not a human. I don't want to face 9 months of pregnancy so this fetus is not a human. It's the same thing, deciding that something isn't what it actually is for your convenience.
Abortion is the most destructive holocaust in modern day. Read my article about the dangers of legal abortion and you will see that even the lie of compassion for the woman has led to more deaths and sickness than illegal abortion ever did. It is a vicious lie and any debate will show that abortion is a travesty to any free society, as any other type of internment or slavery of a group a people based on an arbitrary fact. (i.e. blacks, Jews, unborn babies, etc.) Abortion is not a right. We don’t have a right to kill human beings that bother us just because it’s not a good time to have that human being around.
Gary T---your comments about the unborn make you sound more like a NARAL Koolaid-drinker than a libertarian. There is no credible medical evidence to support the idea that a fetus is merely a "growth" in a woman's body.
I agree with you, however, that a woman owns her own body and has the right to do what she chooses with it. I believe her unborn baby also owns its own body and has the right to be allowed to mature to the point that it can make decisions about what should be done with that body. Yes, the woman has liberty, but the baby has liberty too.
As a libertarian, I will not FORCE any woman to make a choice I agree with. We must not lose sight, however, that abortion is the most hideous use of FORCE imaginable.
I fully agree with the article writer---abortion has many parallels to slavery. Both were buttressed by unconstitutional and poorly-considered Supreme Court decisions: Dred Scott and Roe v Wade. Both declared an entire class of people to be "non-persons" or "property."
In fact, abortion is the Fourth American Holocaust. The first was our treatment of the Native Americans. Second was slavery. Third was our treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Abortion is fourth.
How many more holocausts are we going to add? Are homosexuals and lesbians next, perhaps? How about born again Christians?
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-05 13:49:24
Libertarianism only necessarily relies on the definition of "liberty" that any given society has created for itself - ours lies in the plain and [usually] easy to follow Constitution. There can be a Constitutional argument made against abortion being a right, against it being a privacy issue, against privacy being a non-enumerated right, etc. Not a very compelling argument, mind you, but an argument all the same. There is far too much written instruction in our Constitution that tells the state to leave people the hell alone when the reason you would boss them around does not have recognized rights.
I'm pretty sure that "rights" are given to citizens "born or naturalized".
If anyone wishes to "interpret" the word born to include UNborn, then you're doing the same thing to the Constitution that judges and bureaucratic rules have been doing for decades: "Reasonable search requires warrants except when we say it doesn't".
Yeah, sounds "reasonable" to me. "Cuz we say so".
And that's essentially the way you get to the "born = unborn" exemption to being left the hell alone from government interference in order to bridge the rather wide gulf between actual wording and subjective desire, here.
"Interested Catholic"; the best reason for you to forgo getting into that discussion is not because anyone else is as closed-minded as you; it's because you're arguing equivocatively - by necessity. The US doesn't enforce "natural law", nor does it enforce "science". The US enforces US law which, ideally, is based upon the US Constitution for support.
You may feel passionately that "unborn" has rights equal to citizens born or naturalized, and if so then more power to you. But until the Constitution actually says so, the one being "unreasonable" and "closed-minded" is ... um ... vous, mon frer. Sorry; deal with it.
I would suggest instead that you drop the whole "rights of the unborn" tack, since that one is a congenital loser. Instead, go with the Will of the People thing. Dogs and animals do not have rights under our Constitution [despite the tear-stained tirades of PETA weenies]; yet we have animal cruelty laws. Why? Cuz a democratic republic is designed to give the majority what they want as a general rule.
A majority of Americans want legal abortions, but a majority also does not want all abortions to be legal. Work in the middle; if this were almost any other issue, we'd have been working in the middle for a generation now. Instead, it's still being driven by the simple-minded, closed-minded, brick-brained zealots on both sides, neither of whom are more than about 1/6 of the voters. Strident minorities is no way to run a republic.
Amy: you take the cake for facile commentary:
We've convinced society that the fetus is not a unique human being blessed with the same inalienable rights as any other human.
Um. Yeah. Until you can find "unborn" in the Constitution, that's exactly correct. They are not so blessed.
If you want them to be so blessed, then pass that Constitutional Amendment. Until then, they are not. And the entire rest of your teary wail is predicated upon the dishonest and emotion-laden swill of equivocation. "Human".
A lady I work with just had her appendix removed. The surgeon tossed it into the receptacle for human tissue. Does that appendix have those "inalienable rights" you *snffff* weep over? It's no less human.
The difference is, of course, though you may not be honest enough to acknowledge it, is that this is a LEGAL issue entirely. "Person" is what our laws define one to be. Not what you assert it to be.
Once you become dictator, then that of course is subject to change, but until then you are being entirely dishonest.
And Mike, you can quit equivocating as well. At the time of an abortion, there is no "baby". There is a fetus. Using dishonest terminology to claim through emotional folderol what cannot be supported rationally is academic shinola.
Thank you for your oh-so-compassionate response to our views.
I cannot, however, thank you for completely missing the point of MY response to Gary T. My point was that he was mistaken in assuming that nobody would read Mark's essay if he had used the "a-word" in the title. I disagreed. Abortion is a huge topic of discussion, debate, controversy, etc., obviously, as shown in the comments that followed. That was my point. If you disagree with that point, feel free to say so. Is it that we radical pro-life loons are way off the mark? Was that the reason for your reply?
I don't know if I speak for all of us but I would appreciate your comments more if you would stick to the point when responding to mine. Do you feel that Mr. Vogl would get "no readership" if he had used the abortion term in his essay?
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-13 07:29:32
Thank you for your oh-so-compassionate response to our views.
You're welcome, but I gotta ask ... That was compassionate? I thought I was condescending to a bunch of condescending santimonioids. Y'know: response-in-kind.
I cannot, however, thank you for completely missing the point of MY response to Gary ...
I did not wish to respond to that; I viewed it as tangential and impertinent. You may be right; you may not be. I don't know; I don't care.
Is it that we radical pro-life loons are way off the mark? Was that the reason for your reply?
You loons are certainly sincere. But sincerity has never been directly interchangeable with logical or legal supportability. There is no exchange rate for the two. A half a cup of sincerity does not equal a pound of legal correctness.
You equivocate terms - a fetus is 'human' therefore it is 'A human'.Â
No. It's not.
An appendix surgically removed is also 'human'; it is not 'A human'.
You grossly exaggerate the scope and purpose of our form of government, injecting irrelevant notions into what is, essentially, a legal landscape - "natural law" claims ... whatever. Frankly, this is just a short step away from the trite and cliched "Gods Law" argument which is entirely bankrupt.
If this were any other subject, we would have long ago settled into the vast middle ground that exists between the two polarizing extremes. And I blame both of the ends for this: you and your "no abortions ever" weenies, as well as the "all abortions all the time" nitwits.
I would appreciate your comments more if you would stick to the point when responding to mine
Make a point that is itself not a tangentializing irrelevancy and maybe I will. If you want to wrap yourself around the axle, you can do that without my participation.
Again you show incredible tolerance of those with differing viewpoints and the eloquence with which you speak must make you feel very wise indeed and well above all others in knowledge and profound wisdom. We have been enlightened and humbled by your remarkable grasp of the laws, of the country and mankind himself.
In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court did not rule on whether a fetus was \\\'A human,\\\' but rather, that abortion fell into the category of a woman\\\'s right to privacy according to the Constitution (in which a \\\"right to privacy\\\" is not actually written but assumed). The court chose not to determine when the life of a fetus begins as is shown in Section IX of the decision:
\\\"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man\\\'s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.\\\"
Your assumption that a fetus is NOT a human is not based on the law, but on your own belief. I believe that a fetus IS a human; you believe that a fetus is NOT a human. The law does not definitively determine that a fetus is a person under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, also from the Roe decision, from the West\\\'s Encyclopedia of American Law:
\\\"In making its argument, the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the Court also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability — that is, after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside of the womb. As a result, states were permitted to outlaw abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy except when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.\\\"
Your black and white assessment of the fetus being either human or not human doesn\\\'t address the obvious quandry of viability. However, the law does address this issue. Can an appendix ever be viable outside of the human body? No. It is not even viable INSIDE the human body. Therefore, to compare the two is a bit juvenile, even for you. I don\\\'t foresee any future legislation protecting the life of an appendix after viability, do you?
Lawmakers continue to consider the rights of the unborn all the time. The issue is constantly up for debate. Laws are amended and my guess is that medical technology will force lawmakers to amend the Constitutional laws that suggest that a fetus does not have the same rights of any other born and/or naturalized citizen. At some point, these rights will be granted and I guess us when that happens, us loons can throw a party.
And by the way, just because there currently are laws on the books that suggest that a fetus is not a person does not make it the truth. There are probably many laws that exist that I do not agree with, nor should I. This does not make me closed-minded, as in your view. Give me a reasonable and logical explanation as to how a fetus is no different than an appendix (that makes some kind of sense) and I will be happy to open my mind to the possibility. As I said, I don\\\'t recall hearing or reading about legislators struggling over what to do with an appendix after viability. Just because it is written down in a law book does not mean that it is a law that I can get behind, no questions asked. If a law is unjust, I do not blindly accept it. Although I suspect that there are a lot of people in Washington who would just love you.
Oops, before Ross catches it and chastizes me severely for not proofreading well enough, I meant to say that "At some point, these rights will be granted and I guess when that happens, us loons can throw a party."
Certainly not as eloquent as Ross, but heartfelt anyway.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-27 07:59:49
Again you show incredible tolerance of those with differing viewpoints and the eloquence with which you speak must make you feel very wise indeed and well above all others in knowledge and profound wisdom
I would agree.
I do not feel the need to infuse my side of discussions with emotional twaddle, which then gets elevated to the lofty - and inappropriate - status of fact.
Your assumption that a fetus is NOT a human is not based on the law, but on your own belief
You are wrong. If you say it again, knowing that you're wrong, you will be knowingly wrong, which would make you a liar.
Stop while you're merely behind.
the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The fetus is not a person under the law. How much clearer do you need to have it? I was right when you said I was not, which makes you wrong. These are factual commodities.
It is human, but not A human. Just like an appendix.
just because there currently are laws on the books that suggest that a fetus is not a person does not make it the truth
What is "truth"? And to whom? And based on what?
My only interest is in doing what the law says about it, and from a properly libertarian perspective - which are based on the liberties as defined by the Constitution.
If you want to change the philosophies of US liberty then there are mechanisms in place to do so. And at the point that you DO do so, then you will find me arguing on your side of the discussion every bit as forcefully as you find me arguing against it now. For at that point, your side will be factually supportable.
At the moment, however, you are not.
If a law is unjust, I do not blindly accept it.
Never said or suggested that you should. I, in fact, will give you a thumb and a half up for doing just that. But I would suggest that if you are going to argue - in proper rhetorical fashion - that you divorce yourself from your emotional baggage before you open your mouth from now on. Or before you lay hands upon your keyboard, either one.
Stick with pertinence; stick with relevance; drop the equivocative language and the self-righteous terminology. And hint: for all practical purposes, "moral" is nothing but the proper enforcement of the laws societies enact. When you wish to argue "morality" uncoupled from that, then you are, essentially, diving into your own navel in rapt self-involved irrelevance.
I find your critical thinking and oratory (written, in this case) skills to be extraordinary and, quite frankly, I wish that more people could emulate those skills. I mean that sincerely and not with the sarcasm of my past comments. Honestly, you are quite obviously a thinking and intelligent individual. I needed to say that to be intellectually honest and I would love to sit and have a few drinks with someone like you any time. And no, I'm not asking you for a date.
With that love fest out of the way, I have to say just a few things in response to your comment. I take issue with your implication that I infuse my "side" with emotional twaddle. Albeit colorful language, my belief is that it is dangerous to discuss human rights issues (and yes, you and I disagree about whether a fetus is A human, therefore you do not believe that the fetus should be protected as such) absent from emotion. I would guess that you would fight vehemently for your beliefs, such as the belief that all liberties are defined by the Constitution, which you should, but to expect human issues to be devoid of human emotion is a pretty big order. Your point is valid in that our emotions can certainly get in the way and can often lead to self-righteous platitudes and futile arguments. However, my original point that started this whole string of discussion (so-called) is that abortion is a very hot topic and is, whether a libertarian likes it or not, an emotional issue.
To answer your question about "what is truth" and "to whom" I bring up the movie "The Village." Don't know if you have seen it but the premise is that a village of people have removed themselves from traditional society to raise their children away from the evils of that society. The children are completely ignorant of the world outside of their village and are taught (and believe because their elders perpetuate the belief in numerous ways) that there is a monster outside the border of the village that will kill anyone who goes beyond those borders. The "truth" according to the children/young people of the village is not "The Truth" because "The Truth" is that there is a totally different world outside the village than the kids believe and the "monster" is actually the parents of the children dressed up as some fiercesome creature. There is actually no monster and the "evil" outside the borders are just other people who live in a different society, although evil does exist. So, the relative truth to the children is that the monster is a real monster (relativistic truth) and the actual truth is that the monster does not exist (truth).
I would be willing to guess that you asked the question "what is truth?" and "to whom," etc., to illustrate your avid libertarian framework of belief. Fair enough. I do not label myself as such, nor do I label myself a flaming religious right-wing nut-case, which you would most likely like to label me. And your questions are valid because it is dangerous to use the Constitution as a religious weapon and I would be the last person to advocate that action. I do believe that there is a "Truth" with a capitol T, however. Anything else is relativism, which I also believe runs rampant in our culture these days. I also believe that it is important to have an understanding of these things when working on legislation that affects human beings.
So if I appear emotional, ok, good. These are emotional issues and I doubt that the Founders set aside all morality when framing the legal doctrines of this country. I find their writings to be framed within a distinct moral context. Basically what I am trying to say and not very well is that I do not consider my beliefs to be "emotional baggage." Nor do I consider my terminology self-righteous; however, I do consider it "right" as I am certain you consider yours to be.
At any rate, it has been quite enjoyable reading your thoughts. I feel certain you will have the last word on the subject. I am looking forward to reading it.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-27 14:45:17
to expect human issues to be devoid of human emotion is a pretty big order.
I don't expect that. I expect the opposite, actually. I prefer the discussion of these issues to be devoid of it - but also don't expect it then, either. But I will point it out when it occurs.
I'm a professional analyst for military and defense "stuff" and my personal opinion means nothing relevant to what I do. I have nearly thirty years of subordinating my opinion and doing my analysis of facts as they are presented, and nothing else. No, others don't have the practice I have. I realize that. I often find that my analysis points in directions quite different from my opinion of the subject.
A clue to future discussion with me, if you wish one: if someone ever says of what I write "...well, that's just your opinion!" and I respond by saying "I haven't given my opinion", that's a pretty good indicator that I agree with the person I've been arguing with in one or more ways but for reasons that cannot be substantiated by analysis. Many things are believed and disbelieved both, just cuz. And that's fine. But don't make up shit to support it. That's dishonest.
I've said before - perhaps here, perhaps in another discussion thread on the same issue - there is a Constitutional argument to be made that fetii have rights; there is a better one to be made that existing persons have rights to be free from gratuitous intrusion into their affairs, even if it involves a future existing person.
At present, the majority of Americans want legal abortions, but do not want all abortions to be legal. That is a workable solution. And if it were almost any other subject, we'd have arrived at the middle-ground long ago. A "right" is never open-ended, even when it's specifically enumerated. Go at it from that angle.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
