This week Presidential Candidate Ben Carson made headlines and received scorn from the liberal media for comparing abortion to slavery. During an interview on Meet the Press, Carson was asked if he believed women should have the right to abort their babies. Carson responded:
During slavery — and I know that’s one of those words you’re not supposed to say, but I’m saying it — during slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought that they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said: ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery. I think it’s wrong, but you guys do whatever you want to do’? Where would we be?
Carson believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Despite the Left’s new outrage at Carson’s statements, he’s absolutely right! In fact, abortionists are actually WORSE than slave owners. Slave owners were racist, and that’s horrible. But abortionists take a huge leap from that and actually believe that unborn children aren’t human beings at all!
David French at National Review explains exactly what I mean:
To many of the defenders of slavery, the practice was an appropriate, paternal response to a race incapable of governing itself, a race that needed instruction and guidance to take its place among the peoples of the world. Robert E. Lee’s view that slaves were “immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially” was common. In fact, Lee held that slavery was a transitional phase. “The painful discipline [slaves] are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things,” he wrote in 1856. In other words, even the most “benign” of slave owners (Lee also called slavery a “moral and political evil” and thought it would die a natural, God-ordained death) believed in fundamental differences between black and white.
Abortion-rights advocates believe something even more radical and profound — something worse than racist — that unborn children aren’t really people at all. They’re merely “potential” people or “clumps of cells” not much more distinct than a tumor or an ingrown toenail. In other words, while the Constitution declared slaves to be only three-fifths of a person, the sexual revolutionaries have persuaded the Supreme Court that an unborn child is no person at all. This view is held despite undeniable scientific evidence — from a knowledge base of the human person far superior to the knowledge base available in the 19th century — that an unborn child is distinctly human from the moment of conception, possessing his or her own unique DNA, and that while the baby is dependent on the mother, he or she is not part of the mother.
And why do abortionists bear the weight of responsibility for the murder of the unborn baby? French writes:
In other words, while women seeking abortions bear moral responsibility for their actions, that responsibility generally pales in comparison with the moral responsibility of the abortionist. Even worse than a slave-owner, the abortionist is a mass killer who possesses scientific knowledge far superior to all but the tiniest percentage of his or her patients. The abortionist knows the facts about the baby’s distinct DNA. The abortionist knows the gruesome reality of the procedure itself. And by relentlessly fighting against common-sense informed-consent laws, the abortion industry actively seeks to perpetuate ignorance in their targeted population.
I know that the Left doesn’t want this message out there because it interferes with their BS narrative that they are the enlightened ones working to protect society’s vulnerable people groups. But it’s 100% true.
If so-called progressives really cared about those who are abused and mutilated and have their human rights completely disregarded, they’d be pro-life. They would realize that being against abortion is like being against slavery, because both practices completely dehumanize that which is 100% human.