I was reading information about the Dred Scott case (1857) recently, and I was amazed at how similar the arguments were to arguments from pro-choice advocates. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney said:

We think they are... not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States....

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court said that Dred Scott had no legal standing in the court system simply because he was black, and that he was considered "property" under the Fifth Amendment. At the time, blacks were considered inferior, or not fully human, and thus were not guaranteed the same protections under the constitution.

The entire basis for the pro-choice position is that it's "the woman's body", and therefore, "her choice". Legal justifications for this are predicated on the fetus as not fully human, and therefore have no legal status or protection under the constitution. The Roe v. Wade decision phrased this as an issue of the fetus reaching a "viable" stage of development in order to be granted constitutional protection, but went so far as to say that:

The law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth... In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

Then I found this article today -- The Peculiar Morality of Secession.

Shocked that "moral values" was the issue that defeated them and re-elected President Bush, the LibDems are bleating on every air wave they can ride that they have moral values too. Yes, they certainly do - it's just that some of those values are immoral. Not all. Confederate Southerners held many decent values - but on slavery they were morally wrong. No relativistic morals here, no "that's just your opinion" situational ethics, no wiggles, hesitations, or qualifiers. Slavery is immoral, period - even the LibDems agree.

Thus the teachable moment - for abortion is morally no different than slavery, the claim that one human being may own another as personal property to be disposed of if the owner so chooses.

Thus we need to refer to abortion as "the peculiar institution," and Roe v. Wade as disgracefully unconstitutional as Dred Scott. Watch for this to happen. Watch for abortion advocates to be increasingly on the defensive as they are made to understand the moral equivalence between abortion and slavery.

The day is not that far off when schoolkids will be asking their history teacher puzzled questions as to how there was a time in America when people passionately defended the morality of a mother killing her own baby.

This mirrors my own thinking on the subject, and I'm encouraged that there are others who share the same idea.

Labels: politics