The Fatal Formula

There is only one reason anyone makes a distinction between a human and a person, and that is to exploit an individual for some purpose. So who is making the distinction, what are the excuses for making the distinction, and what is the REAL agenda behind making the distinction?

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• pro-life
• pro-choice
• abortion
• contraception
• personhood
• fetus
• equal rights
• Silence of the Lambs
• The Mission
• Planned Parenthood
• Silent Scream
• slavery
• genocide
• eugenics

[PETEtheTRAINER]

DID YOU KNOW..

a PERSON is a CORPORATION according to your birth certificate.

So using 'PERSON' or 'PERSONHOOD' to get your point across, actually comingles and cancels your facts as they stand legally.

[ClumsyRoot]

Understood.

[HolyknightVader999]

@ClumsyRoot Actually, those two options as I said before were the only ones available during the fifteenth century. There was no humanitarian organization that accepted POWs from all sides; it was either enslave or kill, and both Christians and Muslims did that to each other (well, not to fellow Christians or Muslims, but to people of the other faith) Plus as I said before, it was either keep them as prisoners and make them work for you, or let them go and let them come back one day to kill you.

[ClumsyRoot]

@HolyknightVader999

You make a fair about killing prisoners of war vs. enslaving them. I retract my glib comment. :)

[HolyknightVader999]

@ClumsyRoot It is a good defense, seeing as the only other option is killing them. Letting them go means they'll kill you in the future. And yes, Catholicism was ahead of abolishing slavery before Protestantism, because antislavery efforts whithin the Church date as far back as the sixteenth century, Protestant abolitionism began with the founding of the US almost 2-3 centuries later.

[ClumsyRoot]

@HolyknightVader999

I'm not sure that "the Muslims did it too" is a good defense. :)

Anyway, my point remains intact: Over the centuries, the Catholic Church's position on slavery has evolved. To its credit, Catholicism was far ahead of Protestantism when it came to supporting abolition.

[HolyknightVader999]

@ClumsyRoot As I said before, 1455 was about Saracens and other Muslims, who had no reservations about enslaving them too. What you were talking about is the Atlantic Slave trade, which the Church condemned from the start.

[ClumsyRoot]

@HolyknightVader999

Yes, but the Supremo Apostolatus was decreed in 1839--two and a half centuries later.

Which makes my point: the Church's position on the issue has changed over time, from sanctioning to begrudging acceptance to restriction to outright abolition. The Church has evolved, to its credit, but it wasn't until the 17th century that the it began to take a consistently anti-slavery position.

Leaving my initial point validated: the Church has a checkered history on the issue.

[HolyknightVader999]

@ClumsyRoot Actually, that was because they were at war with Muslims at the time, and the that was the pope encouraging the Portuguese to fight on against the African and Saracen Muslim. And it was in 1455. 1492 is when the New World is discovered, and Portugal, aside from Brazil, which they mistakenly axquired, does not have the rights over Americas. In Supremo Apostolatus confirms papal abolitionism. "Just" slavery was the only thing permitted, meaning enslavement for a crime.

[ClumsyRoot]

@HolyknightVader999

Take this little nugget from "Romanus Pontiflex" (papal bull,1455), which encouraged Christians in Africa and the New World to "invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and...to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery..."

Like I said, a checkered history.