since we`re talking about slavery

[kimba1]

if illegals were made into legal slaves wouldn`t that solve all complaints about them since it would effectively solve economic and legal issues. they still displace american workers,but since thier slaves that shouldn`t be an issue since it`s work only slaves can do.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I tend to think that enslaving people as a national policy (no country has done this since the Third Reich) would be a severe violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US has signed.

[Plane]

True , it is a violation.

But it is happening.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And it has zero to do with abortion.

I am against slavery, okay.

[Plane]

I see being agfainst slavery and for abortion as a severe inconsistancy.

What reason can there be for opposing slavery?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I am not FOR abortion. I am FOR a woman who does not wish to have a child being able to decide to have an abortion. It is up to her to have a child or not have a child. If she has a child, she is obligated to raise it.

Slavery has nothing whatever to do with abortions or a woman's right to choose to have one.

A slave is a setient being. A fetus is not. The woman owns her own body. You do not, the government does not.

I fail to see why you keep harping on this.

I am not going to change my mind.

[Plane]

I do not expect you to change your mind, I expect you to debate.

If I can , I would like to gain insight into your thoughts.

Or have fun with them , whichever seems more appropriate at the time.

As you support a womans right to kill a child that she encloses, why ?
You do not support this same womans right to own someone she won't kill,why?

The connection is direct!
We are talking about the same theoretical person.

[Plane]

if illegals were made into legal slaves wouldn`t that solve all complaints about them since it would effectively solve economic and legal issues. they still displace american workers,but since thier slaves that shouldn`t be an issue since it`s work only slaves can do.

This is a tough one, the law is against this because we want to preserve human rights and dignity from the destructive nature of slavery.
 
But , it seems to happen anyhow,.... are we tolerating something we think wrong because we like the resulting economic effect?

   I guess we like to think that we are a seprate economy , but really the economys of our trading partners intertwine with ours inextricably, including the worth of labor.

[Xavier_Onassis]

As you support a womans right to kill a child that she encloses, why ?

She is not killing a child. Stop it with the child crap. She is preventing a child that could be a major burden on her forever. It is simply her decision. Not mine, not yours and certainly not that of any government.


You do not support this same womans right to own someone she won't kill,why?

"Someone" is a born human being, unconnected by any umbilical cord.
Except for the fact that you cannot sell them for money, young children are indistinguishable from property.

[Plane]

So why not support slavery?

Especially slavery of a group that has obvious diffrences from regular human beings?


Dred Scott had diffrences from protected citizens just as arbitarily chosen to be important as your distinctions of a fetus that distinguish it from being a human.

If being free of an umbilicus and breathing air are important features of humanity , then how human is an adult horse?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Okay, being inside a female human, connected by an umbilical cord and not breathing air are the features of a fetus.

Actually, the Dred Scott decision was logical if you start with the premise, as Judge Taney and others did, that slavery was legal. A

The ownership of all other portable tangible property remains the same when said property is moved. The Supreme Court was not ruling on the morality of slavery, it was ruling on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of slavery within the boundaries in which the Constitution applied.

Dred Scott only tried to gain his freedom when his former owner's wife refused to allow him to buy his freedom.

Scott and his wife could have simply refused to leave Wisconsin where they were living, but voluntarily returned to Missouri. His owner's widow wanted to rent him out after his owner died, but he did not want to be rented out.  It was immoral to hold Scott in bondage, and illogical to do so, but it was constitutional.

The problem was that it meant that slaves fleeing the South would afterwards have to flee the country rather than simply the South: it made the Underground Railway more difficult.

[Plane]

  But Dredd Scott had a lot of pigment in his skin.

  How is this diffrence less significant than the diffrence of having an umbilicus?

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you cannot tell the difference, then I cannot help you.

[Plane]

I do not believe you are able to use reason in this question.

I do believe you are able to remain steadfast in your opinion by not requireing reason.

One person has no rights because he has an umbilicus, another has no rights because he has plenty of skin pigment.

This is the same sort of "reasoning" that made "black" equal to "slave" for about two centurys here.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is not true. there were thousands of free Blacks in US in 1865. There were even some in the South. Blacks were at no time all automatically slaves.