The Analogous Trilogy: Abortion, Slavery, and Guns for Hire

If you support abortion, you must also support slavery and guns for hire.

Now that I have your attention, I shall elucidate.  I am not a slave owner, nor do I support slavery.  I am not an advocate for human trafficking, nor am I a racist, nor a misogynist, nor an abortionist.  I am an abolitionist against both abortion and slavery, and I am calling the Pro-Choice movement out on their outrageous inconsistencies.

I will present various popular arguments used in support of abortion, and then demonstrate how they can also logically be used to support either slavery or guns for hire.  I will be doing this to show why these arguments for abortion ultimately admit that the human fetus is being mistreated, abused, and murdered every time one is aborted.

I have covered the two most general arguments below.  I shall add more analogies after this post has been published as they are brought to my attention.

"My body; my choice." is analogous to "My plantation; my prerogative."

Many pro-choice advocates assert that the woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body.  They also claim that the fetus inside of a pregnant woman is a part of her body.  Therefore, the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy if she so chooses.

Advocates for slavery assert that the slave owner has the right to do whatever they want with their own property.  They also claim that slaves are like cattle, and in this way are the property of the slave owner.  Therefore, the slave owner has the right to buy, sell, put to work, beat, and kill the slave if he so chooses.

Neither of these arguments provide apt justification for the following reasons:

1. They dehumanize their respective victims.
   
   
   Pro-choice advocates liken the fetus to a clump of cells.  No one would object to the killing of cells, because cells are not capable of feeling pain.  The reality is that the fetus is biologically separate from the mother.  This can be proven by the fact that, if the blood of the fetus is shared with the blood of the mother, both the mother and the baby would die.  The DNA of the fetus and the DNA of the mother will also always be completely, 100% distinguishable from each other.  This same DNA will also show that the fetus is homo sapiens sapiens, and is indeed human.  Therefore, it follows that the unborn is a human being being denied the same right to life as its mother.
   
   
   In the same way, pro-slavery advocates liken the slave to cattle.  Cattle are put to work in fields, butchered, and skinned for their hide to benefit mankind every day.  Cattle do not have human rights because they are inferior animals.  This is the mentality of slave owners.  Slaves are animals that can be traded, put to work for no pay (no one would ever pay a cow except in food), and killed or sold when their usefulness comes to an end.  The reality is that all slaves are human beings who are denied the same rights to freedom as their human masters.
   
   
2. They assume ownership where they should not.
   
   Pro-choice advocates say that because a fetus resides within the mother, then the fetus belongs to and is a part of the woman's body.  This claim is unfounded and ultimately selfish.  If you accept that the self owns the self, then you must conclude that the fetus owns itself, and not the mother.  Therefore, the mother is obligated to provide the fetus with its basic human rights, as the mother does with all other human beings under her care.
   
   Pro-slavery advocates say that because slave owners buy their slaves, and that because those slaves live on their plantation, then the slave owners do indeed own their slaves.  This claim is unfounded and ultimately selfish as well.  If you accept that the self owns the self, that every human being is entitled to self-ownership, then you must conclude that the slave owns himself, and not his master.  Therefore their masters are obligated to release their slaves and provide them with the same rights that they themselves are given as free human beings.  We saw this happen as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation in the 1860s and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.  I hope similar situations happen with abortion.
   
   
3. They imply that ownership justifies neglect and abuse.
   
   Pro-choice advocates say that the woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body.  The woman is therefore allowed to get tattoos, paint her nails, put on make-up, mutilate her skin, amputate her limbs, and eliminate anything growing inside of her uterus.  While I uphold the ideology of self-ownership, I also argue that if you own something—even yourself—you are morally obligated to care for your own property.  If you are not willing to care for your possessions, you do not deserve to have it in the first place.  Failing to care for your own things demonstrates laziness, apathy, and selfishness on your part.  If you are pregnant, care for the child growing within you, or at the very least, put it up for adoption when it is born so that someone else can care for it.  Do not murder it.
   
   Pro-slavery advocates say that a slave owner can do whatever he likes with his property on his plantation.  This includes their slaves.  The slave owner is therefore able to brand, beat, whip, mutilate, amputate, and kill his slaves.  If you are not going to treat your slave well, then you wasted your money by buying one.  If you have a slave, take good care of him, or better yet, emancipate him!  If you're not willing to do either of those, at the very least sell him to another slave owner who will take good care of him.  Do not abuse another human being.
   
   

"My life was improved because I aborted." is analogous to "My live was improved because I hired an assassin to kill my husband."

A woman finds herself pregnant.  She is now faced with the financial struggle of having to pay for doctor's appointments, baby clothes, baby accessories, baby food, diapers, and insurance to cover both herself and her child.  She may or may not have a husband to support her financially as well as emotionally.  She will have to face nearly a full year of physical pain and hormonal hurricanes, and at the end will have to endure the outrageously massive pain of delivery, where her situation will still not improve.  Think of how much easier her life would be if she was able to hire a third party (trained doctors) to terminate her pregnancy.

Let's say that a woman finds herself in an abusive relationship.  She is now faced with the financial struggle of having to pay for things she needs like food and clothing while her partner wastes it on beer and porn magazines, and also has to pay for the visits to the doctor to fix her broken bones and bruised ribs when he or she beats her.  She may or may not be seeking for help from friends, and therefore may or may not have the emotional support she needs.  Her attempts to divorce her partner have failed due to legal complications, as well as not being able to afford a lawyer, and her attempts to escape from him/her have resulted in her being severely punished.  She is stuck with her partner, and sees no end to her suffering.  Think of how much easier her life would be if she was able to hire a third party (trained assassins) to terminate her abusive partner.

Neither of these arguments provide apt justification for the following reasons:

1. Appealing to emotion cannot justify anything.
   
   While both arguments appear to present a strong case for what they are trying to defend (abortion and guns for hire), they are both in reality logical fallacies.  They attempt to manipulate an emotional response instead of providing an actual, concrete, compelling argument.  In the end, neither case even comes close to validating what they are trying to support.  All they really do is tug at your heartstrings in an attempt to manipulate you into allowing them to commit violence.
   
   
2. In the end, murder is still murder, no matter who carries it out.
   
   No matter what your reasons are for killing another human being, you must have the reality that you have killed a human being.  Even the woman who has her life threatened by her husband every day, if she hires a third party to kill him, has committed premeditated murder, and would face criminal charges.  Abortion is not self-defense.  Abortion is murder by a third party, i.e. doctors with degrees instead of assassins with bullets.
   
   
3. Women are not the only ones with the right to live.
   
   Women's rights are very important, and the Women's Rights movement is a noble one.  Feminism is also a movement with good intentions at its core.  However, one must not put so much focus on the rights of women that one infringes on the rights of others as a result.
   
   As Gianna Jessen, a survivor of a failed saline abortion attempt, said: "My life was being snuffed out in the name of Women's Rights."
   
   That is not to say that we should do away with the rights of women!  Make no mistake!  The point is that human rights are for the betterment of humanity, and not for the betterment of a single, entitled party.  If a woman has the right to choose what is done with her own body, then every unborn baby girl must automatically have the right to life until she can choose for herself whether or not to continue living.  Even if a woman is in an abusive relationship, that does not give her the right to hire a third party to do the dirty work for her.  That is not self-defense, as I said previously.  That is premeditated murder.