Virginia Governor Ralph Northam was already stirring controversy this week by defending the practice of abortion during birth, a practice some of us would call infanticide. Northam bumbled and stumbled his way through a radio interview and a press conference doing his level best to make something so unconscionable seem blaise and normal. His only real argument seemed to be that women own their uterus and should therefore be free to treat its occupants with any level of malicious disregard they desire. Furthermore, Northam suggested his views as a man are of no consequence and should hold no weight since he is not in possession of a power imbuing uterus himself. It was an embarrassing display until one considers what is being discussed here.... then it became a display of gruesome disregard for life. For his part, Northam followed the new protocols of feminist wokeness which, yes, also apply to men now. By stifling his own voice for the good of more estrogen-laden voices, he demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice himself at the altar of modern humanism.
That alone would be a full enough week for most people, in terms of negative media coverage. Nobody wants to be publicly criticized and Northam surely thought he had taken his hits and could move on. But fate, which can be cruel, had different thoughts. Northam's troubles appear to be blowing up now as pictures from his time in college have been found that purport to show a white man in blackface standing next to a Klansman. It's not clear which of the two geniuses are thought to be Northam nor has the claim been verified. That being said some reputable news organizations in Virginia are starting to run the story, indicating someone thinks the pics are legitimate. You can see the pics in question below...
You can read a story about Northam's problems in The Virginian-Pilot below:
Ralph Northam yearbook page shows men in blackface and KKK robe
And you can read another take on Northam's current predicament at Washington Post below:
Regardless of whether the racist pics involve Northam the controversy brought two issues together in a very fortuitous way. Those issues are abortion and slavery. The pro-life camp has long seen similarities in the two practices so it is serendipitous that an effort to push abortion to an even more extreme place results in this dichotomous relationship being exposed and discussed by the public.
Much like pro-choice individuals view the life inside a uterus as property in the possession of the mother, pro-slavery individuals, in pre-Civil War years, considered slave life to be property in possession of the slave master. The slave master viewed any possession on his land as his property with which he could do anything he wanted. Killing a slave was legal because their status as property meant they weren't considered human. Likewise, a pro-choice woman views any thing in their uterus as their personal property. And again, since a fetus is being considered a possession killing one is not illegal since they aren't considered human.
It's my belief that a fetus, especially one late in term, is an individual life just like a slave was. Some may point out that the fetus is dependent on the mother to survive as a criticism of my view. The idea is they aren't able to survive on their own so they aren't fully human. But again, weren't slaves also at the mercy of their master for survival? The master controlled their food supply and was within his rights to punish a slave however he saw fit. In reality, a slave was not self-sufficient either, obviously through no fault of their own.
Based on this logic, many modern pro-life activists are looking to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution for help in defending unborn life. The 14th gave slaves citizen status, which meant they could no longer legally be property. The pro-life community is looking into similar legal approaches to protect the unborn.
Despite the media coverage of an onward marching embrace of abortion by all enlightened people, the younger generations are trending more towards the pro-life side of the debate. A case in point is the legal article recently published in Harvard Law Review which argues that the unborn should be protected under the 14th amendment. The author, Joshua Craddock, is a young adult in law school and hopefully one of many who will embrace this issue head on in the coming decades. You can view Craddock's article in Harvard Law Review below:
Protecting Prenatal Persons: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Prohibit Abortion?