A house Divided: Abortion and Slavery in America

In 1856, Lincoln stood out as he opposed the sovereignty doctrine and emancipation for states to choose whether to continue practicing slavery or impoverished all of their slaves. His assertion was that the country had to make up a choice either to continue with slavery or make the slaves free in all states. This was ground on the understanding that all the states were bound by one constitution.For the country to stand as one, it had to make a single choice. Today the country is beingness faced by the debate of pro fill-in and pro-choice. To the pro-choice, the decision to lay aside or terminate the lie of the unborn nipper is remaining on the hands of the m early(a) duration the prolife believe the unborn child make merrys the same arights effective as any other person (Melton, nd). These monstrous divisions have the potential to split our country along the line of whether to grant the rights to the mother or the unborn child.In two(prenominal) cases, proponents of a nti slavery and pro life had and have a moral argument against an detestation that divests our society of an obligation to protect the life of the unborn just as we protect the living. It is definite that in that respect can non be any middle ground in the case relating to stillbirth. We need either to fully support the pro-choice and continue blatantly putting to death the confounded young sympathetics who have no force out to defend themselves.On the other, hand we can embrace the logic of the pro-lifers and give the unborn children a chance to enjoy the right to life and other rights later when they take the light in their lives. Just as in the case of slavery, the pursuit of our rights should not be allowed to deprive other humans their equal rights. The law should bring out straight and define the fact that, final stage the life now is no different from expiration it later. By then the question of whether we are killing through miscarriages shall have been answered .ReferencesMelton, B. (nd).A house Divided abortion and thrall in America. Retrieved on August 3, 2010 from http//capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/ annals/chch_news_435.htmA home Divided Abortion and Slavery in AmericaIn the article A House Divided Abortion and Slavery in America, the author draws a parallelism between abortion and slavery. The article notes four set forth around which the arguments for twain abortion and slavery similarly revolve as advocates of both practices justify their actions.In rejecting the arguments of the pro-slavery and the pro-choice camps on very(a) grounds, the author admonishes society not to replicate its past tense mistake.In the first premise, slaves and in utero children are being regarded as properties. Since they are both properties, it is presumed that their throwers retain the right to dissolve what to do about them. Slave owners, therefore, have the right to do whatever they want to do with the slaves that they own and significant women should be allowed to decide whether to keep or abort their own fetuses.The second premise involves the economics of the spaces, i.e. slave owners, in particular, and the nations economy, in general, profit from the labor of the slaves while women turn to abortion in order to escape the burden of raise a child under conditions of abject distress especially when the child is unwanted for whatever reason.Third, both the slave owners and the pregnant women argue that their actions are virtuously acceptable under specific conditions when the slaves acquiesce to their situation and the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.Finally, both the slave owners and the pregnant women claim that they are only doing what is best for the slaves and the fetuses. In the former case, owners argue that slaves have better credentials if they remain slaves because the owners feed and protect them than when they are freed and left by their lonesome to face the harshness of the world. In the case of the fetus of a poor woman, abortion is considered a humanitarian assurance that the child does not experience the evils of life of poverty.The author rejects all of these premises on the ground that they are one-sided. In other words, only the slave owners and the pregnant women are enable with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.The author argues that by denying the same rights to the slaves and the fetuses would be to deny them of their humanity as well. Therefore, the author maintains that both slavery and abortion could not be considered morally right since these practices deny the slaves and the fetuses (who are also considered human beings in the eyes of the law) of their human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.ReferenceA House Divided Abortion and Slavery in America. hamper to order 71203674.