Oh, I know where the 3/5 rule came from but at the same point the so-called "right to privacy" (as if child pornagraphers also have a right to privacy)conjured in Roe v Wade makes no mention of abortion it merely "tolerates" it. That toleration--as with slavery--was then morphed into a "right" not uncoincidently by the same democrat party.
Democrats never see law as a thing to be obeyed, only as a tool to bludgeon its opponents.
well, yes and no. the constitution was silent on slavery intentionally. it was designed to address the shortcomings of
the articles of confederation, and while there was a good bit of opposition to the institution of slavery in the north at
the time, the founders ignored the entire issue in order to appease the slave holding states. it was a cop out, but a
strategic and necessary cop out in the face of a larger objective.
abortion has an odd and dark past. margaret sanger, the founder of planned parenthood, originally considered abortion
to be a means of limiting the afrian american population. in short, abortion was employed as a tool of eugenics.
my own view is that abortion wasn't a national issue until the unfortunate side effects of the sexual revolution of the 60's
were fully realized. while equal rights was and is a noble objective, the odd focus on equal access to "sex without
consequences" inevitably resulted in questions as to how to deal with the consequences of "free sex".
