Seamus wrote "Not so (that slavery was justified because slaves were not persons but objects with no rights.) If slaves were not considered persons, they could not be prosecuted for crimes, but in fact they were subject to the criminal laws just like everyone else.
Criminal prosecution is no indicator of legal personhood. Back in the day, animals - horses, cattle, dogs - were prosecuted and executed, often for the "crime" of maiming or killing humans. (See http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/4/animalsont...)
"Also, they were protected by laws against murder and assault."
Correct. This came about as a part of an emerging public awareness that particularly egregious forms of cruelty to sentient domestic creatures - horses, cattle, slaves - should not be tolerated in a civilized society, and there were campaigns and legislation to bring about more humane treatment. Again, however, none of this was indicative of any legal "personhood" of America's slaves.
During the slaver period, the legal status of a slave had features common to those of both a developmentally disabled illegitimate minor child and a really valuable horse. Fully adult, responsible, legal person with rights? Emphatically - no.

"Slavery was justified (in part) because slaves were not persons but objects with no rights."
"Not so. If slaves were not considered persons, they could not be prosecuted for crimes..."
Actually, slaves WERE treated like non-humans (like cattle) under the law when it suited the purposes of their white masters, AND they were treated like men when THAT was convenient for them.
Nobody said it was logical or consistent, but it is clearly true that blacks were regarded as non-persons in order to justify slavery.

I first heard about Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice at the time of the Terry Schiavo ordeal. He was one of few voices on the left passionately and articulately arguing to save her life. He seems to be thoughtful, independant-minded, and courageous. The more the left is influenced by such individuals the better.

Slavery was justified (in part) because slaves were not persons but objects with no rights.
Not so. If slaves were not considered persons, they could not be prosecuted for crimes, but in fact they were subject to the criminal laws just like everyone else (and to a few that white people were not). Also, they were protected by laws against murder and assault (though many forms of physical chastisement were not considered assault, and proving that a master was guilty of murder of his slave was, while not unheard of, pretty difficult).

I've always thought that a significant key to ending constitutionally protected abortion has been the use of the slavery analogy and the concept of personhood. Slavery was justified (in part) because slaves were not persons but objects with no rights. Abortion is allowed because the courts have ruled (in essence) that unborn babies are not persons, and as such have no rights.
Alan Keyes spoke at a charity fundraiser/auction here in Orlando a few months back, and he said that when the Supreme Court looked at the Constitution and found "shadows and emanations" of a right to abortion (specifically citing that they found no right to life before birth), they forgot to look at the Preamble.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

According to Ambassador Keyes, this means that the Constitution is written to protect the liberties (freedoms and rights), not just for those of us alive outside the womb, but for those not yet born as well! This means that the rights to have life, liberty, and property (which may only be taken away by due process of law - i.e., found guilty of some crime deserving of having rights truncated) extend to our children and our children's children, even if they are not yet born.
If this argument can be used against exorbitant inheritance taxes (i.e., future generations of my family are entitled to my wealth, and the government must protect that property), then the same argument can be used for life and liberty as well.
The future generations - our Posterity - are entitled to life, even if not yet born, and the government must respect and protect that right.

Politics tends to corrupt. Algore was once a moderate pro-life Democrat but has fallen off the deep end and now is as looney as they come.
I won't even mention Teddy the K since I disagree with just about every word that comes out of his mouth.
Jesse Jackson was a man I could agree with, but he sold his soul for money and power.

Wow, Trish, that's a shocker to me! JWR is overall pretty conservative.

Oops, nevermind. I just saw that part in his biography.

Not only is he a "good" liberal, but he also attended Catholic high school as a teen to learn Latin. He said that it was his formative training there that sparked his political awareness.

I don't agree with him on a large variety of things; but in the essentials, he is absolutely right. If every liberal were like Nat Hentoff, this country would be a lot better off -- and we could all spend our time making this country better, instead of just fighting to hold off disaster.

"ad" that is -- I guess proofreading might be a good idea ;)

I just looked at Mr. Hentoff's article on the site for Jewish World News -- would you believe it -- at the top of the page is an add (Google) for "Pro-Choice" t-shirts. Incredible.

Thanks for the link to the interesting article and the introduction to Mr. Hentoff. If the world made sense, it wouldn't be a shock to us that a liberal would be pro-life -- it is a position that is consistent with a concern for human rights.
Unfortunately liberals and the Democratic party have been hi-jacked by the pro-aborts who have cowed them into believing that to be pro-life is to be anti-woman (when in fact nothing could be further from the truth).
If there's anything a liberal doesn't want to be, it's sexist or racist. But, while tolerance and concern for the welfare of others admirable traits, anti-life forces have used those very traits to manipulate liberals into a stance that is truly inconsistent with their own ideals.
Not so long ago, I was a Democrat and considered myself a liberal -- it was the abortion issue that changed me. And, then were opened further through the plight of Terri Schiavo and her family. The articles quote from the Hemlock Society representative is chilling.
I believe that it really started years ago when pro-aborts and lesbian rights advocates highjacked the legitimate women's movement (for equal pay and opportunity and against pornography, etc).
I think it's only a matter of time before the radicals in the Democratic party will push out anyone with any real heart -- (I had forgotten that Jesse Jackson stood by the Terri Schiavo's parents during the last days of her life). I do believe that eventually they will push African-Americans out of the party with their anti-life and pro-gay-lifestyle agenda. But, you know the parties have changed sides before -- (don't forget - the Republicans were the anti-slavery party at the time of the civil war).

Good article - since I agree with it. :)
I've always thought that a significant key to ending constitutionally protected abortion has been the use of the slavery analogy and the concept of personhood. Slavery was justified (in part) because slaves were not persons but objects with no rights. Abortion is allowed because the courts have ruled (in essence) that unborn babies are not persons, and as such have no rights.
When unborn babies are considered human beings with their own right to life, then abortion will end as a sanctioned procedure.

I wonder where he stands on America's involvement in Iraq now?

Jackson did speak up on Terri Schiavo's behalf, much to my amazement. So, there is some hope.

Hentoff is always very good on life issues. Jewish World Review has his columns on archive. His Feb. 7 column of this year was also worth reading.
Excellent comment, Tim. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

dean beat me to it.

First: Good article. Alot to chew on.
Second: Tim's posting was also very thought provoking.
Thank you both.

Interesting background on Jesse Jackson.
At my high school (a tiny rural place... my graduating class numbered 24) every senior class member got a profile in the local paper, along with a picture.
When mine came up, I was asked to name some of my heroes. Partly to befuddle my parents, partly to tweak the nose of a racist teacher at the school, and also beacuse I admired him, I named the Reverend Jesse Jackson as one of mine.
He seemed, at the time, to be a man of strong faith, with a willingness to speak frankly and a deep and genuine concern for the poor.
During the 1970s, he had been traveling the country visiting poor urban black neighborhoods. Being a black preacher, he could speak his mind, and exhorted black families and black youngsters to forget "entitlement", to work harder, to stop self-destructive behaviors, to set goals and to climb out of poverty via personal achievement. He argued for strong families, and against abortion.
His basic message to the poor was that the Cavalry was not coming, and that they would escape poverty on their own or not at all.
It was about self respect. Bootstrap philosophy.
He sounded, then, a good deal more like Joe Clark (the school principal played by Morgan Freeman in the film "Lean on Me") or like Bill Cosby. He believed in not only speaking truth to power, but in speaking truth to everybody.
I still have the newspaper clipping of my Senior Profile. I look strange, like the South's own teenage hippy/guru/biker. But Jesse Jackson's name in the text below my picture looks even more strange.
I don't know that we could make it through a half-hour lunch and agree on anything. Not that he would have any reason to have lunch with someone like me. He is very wealthy, now, and I have no money, power or influence to offer.
Jackson is an object lesson on what our current political system can do to good people. I don't mean the official system - the Constitution, the Three Branches of Government, all that - but the whole mammoth machine of the Two Parties, the kingmaking apparatus, the beehive of loobyists and caucuses and Political Action Committees.
How sad. I pray that he comes around, one day, and recovers himself. That he might speak the Truth to the Power of his own party.
Hey, it could happen.