On March 25, pro-lifers around the world celebrated the International Day for the Unborn Child. Like past legitimate civil rights struggles, this fight is about recognizing the dignity of the human person. In the case of 18th and 19th century slavery, for instance, it was about recognizing the basic humanity of people of different races. It took the great Statesman, William Wilberforce close to 50 years of his life in finally getting the British Empire to abolish slavery. And it would take a bloody and costly civil war before the U.S. would let it go.
The attacks on the dignity of the human person in our time are legion. From the homosexual propaganda which seeks to distort our natural sexuality to Nazi-like research on embryonic stem cells to the burgeoning sex-slave industry, it is amazing just how perverse our world has become. As the late Great John Paul II had reminded us, we have progressed in the technological fields at an amazing rate, but without a moral compass, we are heading towards a new kind of barbarism and totalitarianism.
The definitive human rights struggle of our time, however, is clearly abortion. Like the debate over slavery, one side frames the debate of unborn children as property rights; the other side appeals to human rights. In the case of slavery, slaves were not persons. They were property – just like unborn children are today. The pro-abortion side has been successful in dehumanizing the unborn child so that it becomes merely a matter of property. How many times, for instance, have we heard their shrill screams and ephitets: “My body, my choice”. “Fetus”. “Product of conception”. “Blob of tissue” – basically any kind of jingle to detract from the humanity of the baby. The more successful the pro-abort crowd is at commercializing humanity, the more successful they are in keeping abortion legal. Of course, they too couch their “struggle” in terms of “rights”. What movement doesn’t? But, like any thoughtful person who is confronted with the claims of so-called rights, one must ask: A right to what? In the case of abortion, it is plainly and simply the license to kill a baby so a lifestyle can be maintained. And that is no legitimate right at all.
The pro-slavery crowd did the same thing as well. In order to marshall public opinion to their side, they needed to dehumanize blacks, treating them like animals and talking about them as if they were far lower than whites. So when they traded for “negroes”, they would make them open their mouths to assess their quality (like one does when assessing the quality of a horse), or they would brand them for identification purposes, or they would separate entire families – wives from husbands and parents from children like you might do to animals.
In the infamous Dred Scott Case of 1857, U.S. Supreme Court ruled people of African descent could never be citizens of the U.S. According to the Court, the drafters of the Constitution had viewed all African-Americans as “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” … The Court also presented a parade of horribles , describing the feared results of granting Mr. Scott’s petition: “It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Source)
This kind of language is very similar to the language utilized by Canadian courts in their refusal to grant human rights to human babies within the womb. In December 1985, for instance, when pro-life hero, Joseph Borowski, pressed his case on the humanity of the unborn child, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that an unborn child was not a person under the Charter of Rights. Four years later in Quebec, in Tremblay v. Daigle , the court also blew past the rights of the unborn by declaring that the “fetus was not a person under Quebec’s Civil Code”.
The Supreme Court of Canada, however, has never ruled on the humanity of the unborn directly. Instead, in the Morgentaller case of 1988, they restricted themselves to stating:
“The right to liberty… guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. … The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state.”(Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty The Queen  (1 S.C.R. 30) at 37)
Although the Supreme Court of Canada has never considered the question of the legal standing of the unborn child as a person, it is clear by their rulings that unborn children’s rights or values are subordinated to the lifestyle decision of their mothers, making them, for all intents and purposes, merely property of their biological mothers (and ultimately the State) to dispense with as they see fit. And usually the dispensing comes in the form of flesh and blood and excruciating pain to the unborn child.
In all of these decisions, it is clear that, like Slavery before it, the judicial high priests of the day have played a pivitol role in denying basic human rights, and that is why, uncoincidentally, their views are held in contempt by those who can see beyond the contemporary political correctness. Like slavery before it, the public acceptance of abortion will one day be exposed for the heinous crime it is, and future generations will look on the liberals of our day with amazement and contempt since they could not accept what their own ultrasound technology showed them.
Like the Dred Scott slavery cases before them, let us hasten the day when Roe v. Wade and Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty The Queen are added to the overthrown pile of judicial excrement which has caused the human race so much shame and misery these past forty years.
And that day is coming, sooner than you think.