Quote:lol. Now that's funny.


The legal rationale for slavery was whether or not, in the eyes of the law, all men (and women) were equal before the law and the universality of the endowment by the creator espoused by Jefferson. The recognition that all men are created equal was an essential part of the rationale behind the 13th 14th 15th amendments to the constitution as well as the subsequent civil rights acts of both the 19th and 20th centuries respectively.


In the case of Roe v. Wade, it was argued that basic human rights are not based on biology or intrinsic to the human condition, but to certain abstract criteria to be determined by other men. That is wholly antithetical to the concepts expressed in the declaration of independence and the basic underpinnings of human rights as they were previously understood.


This was accomplished because in 1973 there was no such thing as a 3d ultrasound etc. It was argued that until very near the time of birth that a fetus was just a clump of cells like cancer or bacteria. As technology has progressed, the understanding of the complexity of all aspects of human life have been expounded upon time and time again and the concept that human beings should be cast aside just because they haven't reached an arbitrary stage of development should take its rightful place in the trash bin of history.


If you have trouble understanding, comparing, and contrasting the fundamental legal underpinnings behind segregation, slavery etc. and their relationship to the concept of person-hood as it relates to the fetus the please by all means feel free to ask as many clarifying questions as you need. This silly idea of dismissing any argument that illuminates the hypocrisy of your world view as NOT WANTING TO ENGAGE ON THE LAW is easily transparent.