Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

In the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sandford,?

they ruled that blacks were non-persons under the Constitution

and therefore had no rights as citizens.

Lets compare this to Roe vs. Wade:

Dred Scott v. Sandford

Roe v. Wade

Slavery is legal

Abortion is legal

7 to 2 decision

7 to 2 decision

Blacks are non-persons

Unborn are non-persons

Blacks are property of the owner

Unborn are property of the owner

Abolitionist should not impose morality on the slave owner.

Pro-lifers should not impose morality on the mother.

Is this a fair comparison?? Are pro abortionist the modern day equivalent of yesterdays slave owner??

Update:

Matt D...so you are making the claim that abortion is far worse then slavery??....Hmmm...interesting...

Update 2:

Robinson cruz...those dang gone rightwing Christians!!!...how dare they be against the murder of the most defenseless and innocent of all...bunch of right wing..how'd you say it??...oh, fundamentalist right-wing whackos...lol...

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    excellent! excellent! excellent!

    ty for exposing the pro-choicers for the barbarians they REALLY are!

  • 1 decade ago

    The commonality between Scott and Roe is simple: judicial activism. The Court had no business ruling in either.

    I think your comparison is not fair. Slave owners were not immoral at the time of their ownership. Right or wrong, that is how it was done.

    Abortionists are a different beast.

    While I oppose abortion, the abortionists are not defeated by talking like this.

  • 1 decade ago

    First of all there is no slavery in the USA, in the past 200 years !!! None of us today are responsible for this, Its in the past. Second killing a baby is murder!! many many women have had abortions late in the pregnancy, that's murder, A baby is a gift from GOD, at the time of conception!! I do not see peta!! aborting baby animals, Why in the name of GOD, would people kill their own, animals do not do this!!! and since animals were put on earth by GOD, for us to do with them as we please, we are treating them better then human life it's self!!! God put all human form on this earth, and he was the racist, as he divided all the continents!! Makes sense to me!!!! With out animals, we would not be here today,

  • 1 decade ago

    One big difference. I fear that many right wingers believe the Dred Scott decision was correctly decided by the Supreme Court, but Roe v. Wade was not.

    Here's your fundamentalist right-wing whacko blog source, in case you just "forgot" to post it.

    http://www.truthmanifesto.com/2008/09/abortion-and...

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • fdm215
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    No. Its not a fair comparison. It assumes that a fetus is the same as a Dred Scott. That's not true. A fertilized egg isn't a person, a clump of cells isn't a person, etc.

  • robert
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I guess it all hinges on whether embryos are people worthy of rights. If that's true, then yes your comparison holds.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No its not a fair comparison.

    At least with slaves we let them work, buy themsleves out of slavery, and have wives.

    The babies just get executed!

  • 1 decade ago

    Slavery was an American institution that was worst than death. And it carried from generation to generation. And it lasted over 200 years. So I'd say bad comparison.

  • 1 decade ago

    Great comparison.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Not a comparison. No cigar.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.