By: Mike of The Ornery Young Gunz
160 years ago, judicial activism reared its ugly head and declared –without any basis in Constitutional law and in violation of established precedent- that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves”, whether enslaved or free, was never an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue for his freedom in federal court. It further declared that any Congressional law that freed slaves – such as the Missouri Compromise- was unconstitutional as it violated citizens’ 5th Amendment rights to possess their property against unwarranted search as seizure. This would be the first time, but not the last, American Democrats would abuse the courts to violate the Constitution and abrogate one of Mankind’s inalienable rights as spelled out in the Declaration. It is the Dred Scott ruling that arguably entrenched the divisions between slave and free states, invigorated the dying institution of slavery, and emboldened Southern States to eventually secede from the Union, leading to a bloody Civil War.
Roughly 100 years later, another court decision laid out by activist judges would split the nation once again and violate the inalienable rights, not of descendants of African slaves, but of the unborn.
This decision, made by expanding and contorting an implied right to privacy under the 14th Amendment, also invented out of thin air the ability to treat human lives as expendable chattel and denied basic citizenship to an entire class of human.
In both cases, supporters of either decision view the individuals who suffer under such rulings -be they blacks or the unborn- as subhuman, inferior, unworthy of the same basic rights they themselves enjoy, a “thing” to be possessed, used, and discarded violently the moment its existence becomes too problematic or inconvenient.
It is the fundamental American premise that the primary, if not the sole, purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of the innocent., and that such should only be deprived of their rights as punishment for a crime. Who among us is more innocent of a crime than an unborn child?
Just as the only justification for slavery was one of economic and personal convenience, so to it is with abortion. There is no moral justification for abortion.
Let me repeat: there is no moral justification for abortion.
Years ago, I proposed the following thought experiment to illustrate this very point: let us imagine countless years into the future a society with technology following Arthur C. Clarke’s third law: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Let us further suppose that in this highly advanced society an artificial womb exists such that at any stage of pregnancy, from conception onward, a fertilized egg may be removed from a woman and placed in said artificial womb and grown to viability, with zero negative consequences or invasion of privacy to the mother or child.
Now consider any of the scenarios used to sell abortion to conservatives (or at least shame us into silence): rape, incest, to save the life of the mother, et al. In any of these scenarios, would the moral decision be to terminate the unborn life? Or to implant the fetus into the artificial womb and allow it to grow to sufficient maturity? What argument could possibly be made to justify terminating the unborn, when both mother and child could be saved without any negative consequence to either? Who would argue openly in such a scenario that it is morally correct to end innocent human life, solely because it is “undesirable” besides Nazi eugenicists?
Now consider the following question: does morality hinge on available technology? Are good and evil contingent on how technology advanced society is? Is an immoral act in some unforeseeable future moral in the present? The answer is a resounding “no!”
Certainly, the absence of sufficiently advanced tech makes abortion in some cases more practical or convenient than alternatives. But the same could be said of slavery in a pre-Industrial society. Just because something is easy, doesn’t make it right.
This observation is perhaps why, now that artificial womb technology is no longer purely theoretical leftists scrambled to explain why it doesn’t change anything. When you perceive that you have a “right” to terminate human life at will (which isn’t at all different from the perceived right to own another human being and consider them your property), artificial wombs are as likely to change your mind about abortion as the cotton gin or the industrial revolution changed American slave owner’s minds about owning slaves. Which is also why in America abortion has gone from “safe, legal, and rare” to out and out fetishizing the practice.
Support for abortion has become so fevered that many on the Left aren’t even careful about what they say or how they say it. What used to be a practice that was supposed to “safe, legal and rare” has now become a Final Solution for Down’s Syndrome. Where once most, if not all ,of America looked in horror at Gosnell’s atrocities, we now have a licensed doctor boasting about how unborn babies can’t scream in pain because she makes sure to slit their throats first.
The concern I have, and why I often compare slavery to abortion is that in a society where either is not just tolerated, but celebrated, the weak and the powerless are ultimately the ones who suffer most, while the strong and the rich feed and grow fat off their misery and suffering. If you’re a woman who can’t afford or doesn’t want to sacrifice to raise a child abortion sounds great.
If you’re an unborn child with an undesirable (but not necessarily life-threatening) defect, well, sucks to be you. If you’re a rich white plantation owner making millions off of cash crops, slavery is fantastic! But if you’re black? Oh well!
The mindset necessary to advocate slavery or abortion as a right -i.e. something you are entitled to- is that same mindset that inevitably leads to tyranny enacted by the government. Be it mandatory segregation, secret experimentation, unjust incarceration, and other travesties. It is selfish. It is cruel. It is callous. It is unjust. It is abominable.
Since Roe v Wade, abortion has become so entrenched in our society I worry that, like slavery, it cannot be ended without another civil war. I pray that is not the case. Like the Dred Scott decision, Roe v Wade was a case of judicial activism that set back human rights 160 years: when humans could own other humans and treat them as chattel because they had no rights. The divisions that have ensued have only darkened the American Spirit, and caused many on the Left to harden their hearts and to rally around their cause: the perceived right to end a human life without due process.
But just as America had to remove the evil of slavery to preserve itself as a nation, so too must we eradicate the blight of abortion, lest we collapse as a country. There can be no middle ground. Abortion is as evil as slavery. The Left is the party of slavery and control and ending abortion and overturning Roe v Wade is the Civil Rights Movement of our generation. We must right this wrong the same way we did slavery, by standing up or and defending the rights of those who cannot defends themselves.