- Thread starter
- #21
When the Constitution was written, full grown slaves were not Constitutionally recognized as equal "persons" either.
Oh look, the Hitler card. How cute. Well, two can play at that.
The PETA kooks say you're just like Hitler, for refusing to recognize the personhood of animals.
By your logic, they have to be considered correct, being that "feeling very strongly about it" is the proof they use and the proof you use. So, by your own standards, you're just like Hitler. Seig Heil, you Nazi. And you can't complain about that, because you were the one who tossed out the Hitler card.
One can easily argue that the original "intent" was never to exclude ANY human beings of any age, race, creed or stage of life from their personhood protections - despite the fact that they got it wrong with regards to slaves and in other areas.
One could, but it would be a nonsensical argument, being there's no evidence to back it up. It would be like the PETA kooks claiming their intent was for cows to be considered people.
I have a hard time telling pro-life and PETA apart, being that they both rely on the same basic argument. They both toss out some wild historical revisionism concerning what a person is defined as, and then declare that anyone who doesn't accept their weird lexical revisionism is a murderer.
I have no problem with those who want to recognize the personhood of NON human animals.
It only more makes the case that children (actual human beings even while in the womb) are persons too.
EDIT: That said, it would be extremely hypocritical for someone (anyone) to claim a mouse of a fish in a stream is a person - but the actual young of human parents (while in the womb) is something less. Agree?
Last edited: