W. R Mead is discussing the virtues of Justice Clarence Thomas. He has many. I especially like his dissent in Raich and also his views on Kelo. But that is not my point. We have a “Conservative” scholar who pipes up with this gem in the comments. (Bolding mine)
Roe v. Wade is cut from the same cloth as Dred Scott v. Sanford: Certain classes of people are property.
Oh. The irony.
Pregnant women.
Under current “Conservative” Theory the government takes charge of the pregnant woman’s body. But thankfully only temporarily.
Frequent inspections will be required.
H/T Instapundit. I can’t find the exact link. But I didn’t look past the front page.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
16 responses to “Whose Property?”
It all boils down to whether an unborn child is a human being or the property of the mother.
We can argue whether it’s one or the other, but it’s a bit extreme to imply that treating the baby as a human being reduces the mother to government property.
pst314,
How else will you prevent abortion? There are pills. How will you know if a woman takes one without monitoring them?
Conservatives are right on the moral question. Where they are stupid (like forever) is what enforcement will look like.
You know how it went with SWAT Teams.
1. Only for hostage situations
2. Only for dopers
3. Only for everyone.
Why you want to start that cycle for vaginas is beyond me.
Conservatives are as much faithful Government supporting utopianists as liberals. Just about different things.
As to human being. I’ll go with Jewish Law. When half the head is outside the mother.
The 4th Amdmt. makes it difficult for the government to go after clandestine activities. Do you think there is a reason for that?
“The 4th Amdmt. makes it difficult for the government to go after clandestine activities. ”
the 10th amendment says to the fed. gov’t : go to hell
simon the statists who likes killing head exposed babies in the womb. you go clown.
You have convinced me NewRouter.
Let us put the Government in charge of women’s vaginas. What could possibly go wrong?
What if the government decided to conscript those vaginas to produce more babies? Or what if the government decides those vaginas are producing too many babies?
But I get your drift. It can’t happen here. Because government programs are never corrupted from their original intention as sold to the Public. Well not when Conservatives are in charge anyway. We have to wait for the Democrats to do that. Generally not too long though. Which is a comfort. I’m sure the very thought of giving Democrats power over the wombs of your female relatives makes you swoon.
“Smelling salts in aisle CV.”
Simon’s Law: It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity.
“Every power you give the government to do good will eventually be used by the government to do evil.”
+++++
Typical Conservative” “I’m too stupid to figure out how to fix this without putting a gun to people’s heads. Lets pass a law.”
Wait a minute. That sounds like a Typical Liberal.
It is getting hard to tell them apart.
=====
I like Rockford Pro Life. They are against a government “solution”.
NewRouter,
I do get your dilemma. Either start a black market in abortion and give the Democrats control of all female wombs. Or solve the problem outside government.
Tough choice.
Black markets and empowering Democrats has a nice ring to it don’t you think? If I take your side on this it will be because I would LOVE to see those outcomes. Just to be able to watch your self inflicted agony.
Well yeah. I get a thrill out of the strangest things. Why do you ask?
Interesting that the commenter would use the slavery analogy, because the argument can be made that when the state compels a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term, she is performing involuntary servitude. Would the RTL crowd accept compensating her in lieu of allowing an abortion?
I wrote a post some time ago about a hypothetical thief breaking into my house and leaving a helpless infant behind. If society told me I had to care for the baby I didn’t want, wouldn’t it be fair to compensate me for it?
Speaking as a pro-lifer, let me restate your argument in a manner that we might find a little more acceptable.
If we take the more valid of our two favorite analogies (slavery), the effect of having the Federal government abolish slavery was to give the Federal government a wedge that enabled it to try to grab more power over relations between races. One of the effects of that was affirmative action. Another effect was to provide an excuse for any government intervention that could be called “anti-racist” (for example, gun control).
What would be the equivalents of affirmative action or gun control? (One way to head them off is for anti-statists to denounce abortion. It won’t be entirely effective, but it will provide a partial shield, just as the fact that the Great Emancipator was a Republican provided a partial rhetorical shield.)
Good heavens. I read a little further and find a perfect example of one of the dangers I was warning about.
Joseph,
It is one thing to denounce abortion. It is quite another to put government in charge of women’s wombs to prevent it.
Joseph,
So you are saying that slavery (championed by the South) led to AA?
I buy that. If only those son of a bitch Southerners could have seen the consequences of their policy. And Jim Crow? Another stain. Done by a Democrat and only partially undone by another (Truman). Eisenhower had the guts to do something (probably unconstitutional). But Jim Crow was probably unconstitutional.
Conservatives are similarly blinded. Why? Faith. They believe that their faith immunizes them from bad policies that are congruent with their faith. Alcohol Prohibition is a case in point. Billy Sunday a shining example.
Ever notice Conservative demands for a Drug Prohibition Amendment?
Me either.
I never noticed a Prohibition Amendment. Except for Alcohol.
As Eric said in a recent post. Rs and Ds are both nanny staters. Just about different things.
If this is a Christian Nation how do you explain the dearth of Christians? The South is supposed to be especially Christian. How do you explain the spread of Jim Crow in the most Christian part of the Nation?
Or how do you explain the silence of Christians when it comes to the pogrom (the word fits all to well – attacks, confiscation of property, etc.) against drug users.
The evidence shows that chronic users are in chronic pain (PTSD mostly). The vast majority a result of child abuse. So why isn’t there an outcry among the Oh So Moral™ Christians on the subject? MIA. Why are Christians allowing (some even encouraging) the Government to abuse abused children?
Christianity has no special lock on the truth. And from my point of view they do a LOT to support lies.
For shame.
It runs something like this:
1. God doesn’t want us to be drunk
2. If we pass a law outlawing the means to get drunk we are doing God’s work.
It is at #2 where you get in bed with the Devil. Where he gives it to you from behind without grease. And the Christians explain it away by telling everyone how much they are suffering for the sake of God.
In other words piety is greatly over rated. Especially by the pious. I’m told Jesus used to rail about this very thing. But my understanding of Christianity is weak. You will correct me if I’m in error.
And how do Christians support their lack of Christianity?
Sophistry. They spew words the way an octopus spews ink. For similar purposes.
I lived in the South until age 5. And I can tell you I was disgusted by Jim Crow at that age. I drank out of a “Colored Only” fountain at that age – knowing exactly what it was about. That would have been 1949.
How is it that a child knew and the Christian South was asleep at the wheel? I guess Christianity is a defective product. Because it doesn’t seem to help much with political morality. An area of expertise Jesus seemed to excel at. My take of him? “You can’t enforce morality at the point of a sword.” It must come from the heart.
Christians have become the people Jesus fought against. I’m impressed. Not favorably.
Joseph,
It is more than evident to me that Christianity is a dying religion. It has been in bed too long with government.
“A dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Our nation was founded by true Christians and led totally astray by devil worshipers pretending to be Christian. It will not last.