A Case for Slavery Biological As I start with this case, I want to stress an important point that I feel like many miss. That is, in calling them "victims" we are being erroneous because the individuals we are talking about are not, strictly speaking human beings. They are, scientifically, described as a kind of proto-human. Not quite developed enough to be considered an "actual" human being, so to call them victims is actually disparaging to real humans. Legal Now, aside from the biological perspective one must recognize an integral legal argument. The fifth amendment protect's a person privacy and property from undue intrusion. So, it this case, while it may seem odd, perhaps even inhumane to call them property, that is what they are. Until their connection to us is severed, they are as legally a part of our ownership as an arm or a leg. We may do what we wish with an arm or a leg because it is part of our body and our property, and likewise in the other case. Moral Some will attempt to argue this institution is immoral but I would challenge that. If the one who "owns" it, wishes to say, terminate its life (I say it because of the biological facts), due to a lack of either will or ability to take care of it, certainly it would be more moral to end its life that force it to suffer under such circumstances. Some argue that it could be given away to someone who does want it, and to that I would simply have to point them back in the direction of the legality. If she does not want to give it to someone else, because it is easier or more convenient to simply end its life, that is her legal right. Conclusion While some will certainly disagree with this assessment, one must recognize its admittance according to law and indeed the Supreme Court has already permitted it before, even as this is a case for... abortion.