Morals, laws change as we progress

The recent massive March for Life in Washington, D.C., makes clear that Roe v. Wade must no longer be considered legally sacrosanct, just like the Dred Scott decision treating blacks legally as nonpersons was overturned over a century ago. At the very least, greater protections must be afforded defenseless little babies in the womb who have no voice unless we raise ours in their defense.

Defenders of slavery in the 19th century relied on the U.S. Supreme Court. which had ruled in the Dred Scott decision that all blacks — not just slaves — had no legal standing as people in our courts and society; they were property, and the Constitution protected slaveholders’ rights to their property.

The Supreme Court was wrong then and it was wrong in 1973 when in Roe v. Wade it dehumanized, and effectively discarded the rights of, the unborn child in favor of the rights of the mother. Similarly, in Dred Scott, the court had disregarded the rights of slaves and people of color in favor of the rights of slave owners. The parallel could not be clearer. Just as the slaveowner argued for his rights of property in his slaves, the argument that the mother has an unfettered right to do what she wants with another human being’s life is morally flawed and indefensible.

Moreover, why is it that abortion can legally occur much later during pregnancy in the U.S. than in almost any other civilized country? As technology shows us more and more that babies feel pain in the womb and are living, breathing humans and not just a clump of cells, it is time for the travesty of late-term abortion (after 20 weeks) at the very least to end. Future generations will look back in disgust with the killing of millions of defenseless unborn babies since 1973, just as we look back on slavery as morally reprehensible today. SANDY LANNIS

GENTILE Squirrel Hill