Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber has penned an op-ed for Charisma magazine that slams those who support abortion rights are morally no different from those who owned slaves.
Barber's muse was stirred by Arkansas' recent passage of a "heartbeat bill" over Governor Mike Beebe's veto. It's slightly less onerous than Ohio's proposed bill--for instance, the Arkansas law allows abortions in case of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life. But it would still ban all abortions after 12 weeks if a heartbeat can be detected--as Beebe pointed out in his veto message, well before viability. To Barber's mind, Beebe and others who oppose such laws are swimming against the tide of history.
Indeed, history has a way of repeating itself. The Roe decision was not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has so disgraced our nation. Roe v. Wade represents the twin bookend to the Court’s shameful 1857 Dred Scott decision.
In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African-American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens. Likewise, Roe v. Wade ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right: life.
As with Dred Scott, Roe’s fate, I believe, is certain. It’s just a matter of time. History will eventually judge Roe v. Wade every bit as harshly as Dred Scott.
Call yourself “pro-choice”? Shame on you. You’re no better than a modern-day slave master. Dump the garbage and join the right side of history.
There’s plenty of room over here.
This comparison is so outrageously offensive it's hard to know where to start. For starters, Dred Scott was not based on science--or at least, any credible science. It was based solely on prejudice, in the same way that slaves were originally reckoned as only three-fifths of a person for the purposes of apportioning congressional districts. If Barber bothered to read
the Dred Scott decision, he'd see that Taney's opinion was based almost entirely on the supposed predilections of the Founding Fathers.
The concept of viability, on the other hand, is based on credible science that has been tested and retested. Then again, it's not entirely surprising this escaped Barber. We're talking about a guy who doesn't understand the scientific method at all. Remember, Barber is a creationist who doesn't understand that a "theory" is one of the strongest concepts in all of science.
Barber also reveals his true colors earlier in this piece, when he declares that the abortion issue is a matter of good and evil--and pro-choicers are on the side of evil. I really hope I misunderstand what Barber is saying here. Are you saying that if you don't want a mother to have to endure a pregnancy that was caused by rape or incest, you're evil?