Tuesday, January 10

Dred Scott v. Sanford

contra Roe v. Wade

Something Bob Munck said on Pablo's earlier thread attracted my interest:

A more difficult question is when before birth an embryo becomes sentient. I am convinced by the scientific results that it is more than six months after conception, but again, I don't get to make that decision. The mother does.

This strikes at the heart of the matter. Is a developing baby a person?

Or are they the exclusive property of the mother up until the very moment of birth?

Hence the connection to Dred Scott v. Sanford. The only worse decision in Supreme Court history than Roe was Dred Scott. Dred Scott was reckoned a piece of property.

During slavery anyone doing violence to a slave had to answer to that slave's master; otherwise the full weight of the law could be brought down upon whoever presumed to raise a hand against another man’s human property.

John F. Callahan.

Likewise today a woman's unborn child is dealt with as her property. She can decide whether the child lives or dies. The father has no say whatsoever. Indeed, as has been part of the Alito controversy, the father does not even have to be informed.

The unborn child is the property of the woman who is gestating it.

Does this seem right to you?

Dred Scott was the property of Dr. John Emerson. Does that seem right to you?

What is the difference? Especially after the child reaches viability.

I'm not talking about pre-viability. Using Mr. Munck's example, the woman would have already had six months to make her choice (to ignore all of the other choices she'd already made to get there). Roe v. Wade went nowhere near that:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

By extending Roe v. Wade to include a child up to the point of birth the Court has taken the original (bad) decision to ludicrous standards, and Mr. Munck has given us the reason why, and it has nothing to do with privacy.

The Left see the child as the exclusive property of the woman.

Again, does this seem right to you?

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com