Our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness
can only be secured by a state strictly separated from religion

14 August 2010

Ed Quillen on the Slavery Argument

By Diana Hsieh

Ed Quillen commented on the analogy between zygotes and slaves drawn by "personhood" advocates toward the end of his recent Denver Post op-ed on Amendment 62:

If you ponder those possibilities and their ramifications, then it seems about four kinds of weird that the supporters of Amendment 62, an outfit called Personhood Colorado, bring up slavery in their marketing.

They've run a radio ad featuring a fictitious American slave, telling us that "I was held as property as a child. Even before my birth I was called a slave in an America you wouldn't recognize. But folks like you helped me escape North to freedom and in 1864, I joined the infantry to fight for my country. I fought so all slaves would be recognized as persons, not property. And we won . . . . This November, vote 'yes' on Amendment 62. Amendment 62 declares unborn children persons, not property. And that's the America I fought for."

But if Personhood Colorado gets its way, every woman of child-bearing age would have to be supervised lest she injure the rights of the person she may or may not be gestating. Every home miscarriage would have to be investigated by the coroner, for it's his legal duty to look into all deaths of persons that do not occur under medical supervision.

In other words, Colorado women would be required to be reproductive vessels, their lives limited and monitored, all in the guise of protecting "unborn persons." And that sounds a lot like slavery.
Indeed it does.

Comment Rules

Rule #1: You are welcome to state your own views in these comments, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Vulgar, nasty, and otherwise uncivilized comments will be deleted.

Rule #2: These comments are not a forum for discussion of any and all topics. Please stay roughly on-topic.

Back to TOP