In these days, pearl-clutching “O MY GOSH, THIS POLITICIAN JUST SAID THIS THING!” is a popular genre of online article. It allows for lots of hate clicks.
The occasions for these articles range from politicians saying crazy things to reporters taking politicians totally out of context. Often, though, the things reporters think are crazy are not really that crazy.
Ben Carson, a rookie politician who is very intelligent and very new to politics, says some crazy things. His latest allegedly crazy thing, though, is not crazy at all.
As the Washington Post reports it, “Ben Carson likens abortion to slavery, wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned,”
Liberal outlets went further in their reactions, as evident in these headlines compiled by Red Alert Politics:
- The Huffington Post: “Ben Carson Once Again Compares Something to Slavery, This Time Abortion.”
- The Daily Mail: “Iowa frontrunner Ben Carson compares abortion rights to owning slaves.”
- Slate: “Ben Carson Likens Women Seeking Abortions to Owning Slaves.”
- Bustle: “Ben Carson Compares Abortion To Owning Slaves & His Words Are Horribly Problematic.”
- Think Progress: “Carson: Women Who Have Abortions Are Like Slaveowners.”
- Rawstory: “Ben Carson opposes abortion for rape victims while comparing them to ‘slave owners.'”
- Daily Kos: “Ben Carson: Rape victims demanding abortions are like slave owners.”
But Carson in this case is on sound footing to compare the institution of slavery to the institution of abortion.
Here was Carson’s argument:
Think about this. 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, you know, what if the abolitionist 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?
He could have gone further.
Slavery was largely based upon declaring that one class of people (black people) was not fully human, and thus not deserving of the protection of the law or humane treatment. Abortion is largely based upon declaring that one class of people (those still gestating in their mother’s womb).
Defenders of slavery often spoke as if they simply wanted to be left alone — if you don’t like slavery, don’t own one — while they actually used politics to spread their institution and force all people to be complicit in it. Defenders of abortion speak as if they want to be left alone, while they use politics to spread their institution, and force all people to be complicit in it.
Slavery was propped up in an undemocratic way by Dred Scott. Abortion was propped up in an undemocratic way by Roe.
I could go on. It’s an apt analogy. Like any analogy, it has its ways in which it is inapt. But ultimately, it boils down to this: If you defend abortion, but not slavery, you’re probably arguing: those people were incorrect in classifying some people as not human, but we are correct at classifying some people as not human.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
