Would Dred Scott have been in favor of Roe v. Wade?
Scott v. Sandford...... 7-2 vote Dred Scott is property of his owner.
Roe v. Wade.............. 7-2 vote A developing human is property of its mother.
In both cases the U.S. court ruled that humans are not equal. That some humans have more inalienable rights than others. That some humans can impose their will on others.
From Wikipedia "Dred Scott (1799 – September 17, 1858), was a slave in the United States who sued unsuccessfully in St. Louis, Missouri for his freedom in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857. No one knows exactly when he was born. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet Scott were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Minnesota (which was then part of the Wisconsin Territory). The United States Supreme Court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not effect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property."
So would Dred Scott have been pro-life? It's an intellectual exercise and of course, we will never know the answer, but remember this - The Supreme Court eventually got it right in the Dred Scott case and the concept that blacks are not persons worthy of the protection of law is now considered the greatest blight on America's history. Let's pray that the day arrives when the Supreme Court gets abortion right, and the slaughter of the unborn is seen in the same light as slavery.