So, how many of you are familiar with American History? And I don’t simply mean the “whitewashed” version of American history that our public schools teach-I mean down to the nitty-gritty details of American History? Particularly, the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where they put together our nation’s most important document. And how many of you know what the 3/5ths Compromise is? According to the African-American Registry website, this is the definition of the 3/5ths Compromise:
“On this date in 1787, the Three-fifths Compromise was enacted. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that year accepted a plan offered by James Madison determining a state’s representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. The issue of how to count slaves split the delegates into two groups. The northerners regarded slaves as property who should receive no representation. Southerners demanded that Blacks be counted with whites. The compromise clearly reflected the strength of the pro-slavery forces at the convention. The “Three-fifths Compromise” allowed a state to count three fifths of each Black person in determining political representation in the House. Rather than halting or slowing the importation of slaves in the south, slavery had been given a new life — a political life. Even when the law stopped the importing of new slaves in 1808, the south continued to increase its overall political status and electoral votes by adding and breeding slaves illegally. The Three-fifths Compromise would not be challenged again until the Dred Scott case in 1856.” (The “Three-Fifths” Compromise, 1992)
The Dred Scott case settled this issue until Lincoln was able to free all the slaves in the middle of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). The decision in the Dred Scott case simply did this for the slave population: they were not considered human beings, rather property and their owners could do what they wished with them since they were property.
This decision sounds eerily similar to the logic of the pro-choice movement and their wish for on-demand abortion.
Pro-choicers do not view a “fetus” as being a person and so does not require the same protections of the law that a human being has. That while the “fetus” is in the womb, the choice belongs to the mother whether she will keep it or not. The Supreme Court affirms this thought process when it decided Roe v. Wade. What is the difference? I see none, all I see is that we’ve taken human beings-both whose voices have been choked out by the U.S. Supreme Court where the only difference between them is that one lives outside the womb and the other lives in the womb for a short amount of time. I don’t know about you, but all the ultrasound photos that my friends have shared, I really don’t see a difference-I see a head, a body, two legs, two hands, two feet, a nose, eyes, mouth, ten fingers and toes, and two ears-everything that a normal human being has. Many pro-choicers will make the argument that a fetus isn’t a human because it depends on the mother outside the womb-but I ask right back this question: what has changed when the baby is born? Nothing except for the environment that the baby is in. It is just as dependent upon the mother outside the womb as it is inside the womb.
I refuse to believe that any human being-born or unborn-is anything less than a human being, and therefore should be granted the same “inalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And I also believe that each baby should be granted the same Due Process rights to them as being humans-born and unborn. With this in mind, I do believe that Roe v. Wade was the modern version of the Dred Scott Decision in regards to taking away the personhood of unborn babies and relegating them to the classification of property in the womb of the woman-that the woman’s body is hers and that she should do with it as she pleases.