Slavery, Abolition, and Lessons for the Pro-life Movement

[Philip_P]

Abortion will only end when our society as a whole finds it immoral and intolerable. Some challenge this claim saying “should rape or murder be legal, then?” This logic appeals to a consensus on the wrongness of rape and murder which simply does not yet exist on abortion. Creating this consensus is our task. It requires a moral revolution.

There are precedents, perhaps the most significant being slavery. In fact, slavery arguably posed an even greater challenge than abortion. For most of human history it had been taken for granted; entire civilizations have relied on it, yet today it is virtually unthinkable. The few glaring exceptions are just that – exceptions, eliciting universal moral outrage.

How did this happen, and what can we learn from it? Two examples worth examining are the U.S. and Britain. Britain went from being a leader in the slave trade to being a leader in Abolition within a single lifetime. The U.S. also abolished slavery, but nearly destroyed itself in the process. Why such different experiences? More importantly, what lessons can we draw from this and apply in our drive to end abortion?

 

[byzmelkite]

Philip P:

Abortion will only end when our society as a whole finds it immoral and intolerable. Some challenge this claim saying “should rape or murder be legal, then?” This logic appeals to a consensus on the wrongness of rape and murder which simply does not yet exist on abortion. Creating this consensus is our task. It requires a moral revolution.

There are precedents, perhaps the most significant being slavery. In fact, slavery arguably posed an even greater challenge than abortion. For most of human history it had been taken for granted; entire civilizations have relied on it, yet today it is virtually unthinkable. The few glaring exceptions are just that – exceptions, eliciting universal moral outrage.

How did this happen, and what can we learn from it? Two examples worth examining are the U.S. and Britain. Britain went from being a leader in the slave trade to being a leader in Abolition within a single lifetime. The U.S. also abolished slavery, but nearly destroyed itself in the process. Why such different experiences? More importantly, what lessons can we draw from this and apply in our drive to end abortion?

Of course the problem today is the rampant moral relativism that did not exist in the 18th and 19th centuries. A slave trader who has a sense of right and wrong (albeit slightly warped) can be talked to. Your typical egotistical baby boomer or college freshman who thinks that “you just have to do what feels right for you” can’t. I know this. I teach them.

 

[Ahimsa]

byzmelkite:

Of course the problem today is the rampant moral relativism that did not exist in the 18th and 19th centuries. A slave trader who has a sense of right and wrong (albeit slightly warped) can be talked to. Your typical egotistical baby boomer or college freshman who thinks that “you just have to do what feels right for you” can’t. I know this. I teach them.

Have you ever tried talking to a slave-owner? They will cite chapter and verse, as well as Roman and Hellenistic historical precedent, not to mention the very Constitution itself, in order to defend slavery. That’s why moral (per)suasion went in one ear and out the other, when directed towards the slave-ocratic plantation owner.

 

[MikeWM]

byzmelkite:

Of course the problem today is the rampant moral relativism that did not exist in the 18th and 19th centuries. A slave trader who has a sense of right and wrong (albeit slightly warped) can be talked to. Your typical egotistical baby boomer or college freshman who thinks that “you just have to do what feels right for you” can’t. I know this. I teach them.

I don’t see moral relativism is significantly worse than usual. These ‘typical’ people you mention seem to be a product of 80’s economics and politics as much as anything else (‘you can do anything you want as long as you can afford it’, ‘greed is good’)

I do agree that people nowadays have to learn that actions have consequences though.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Abortion will only end when our society as a whole finds it immoral and intolerable.

Which is never. Left by themselves, bad situations always get worse.

Some challenge this claim saying “should rape or murder be legal, then?” This logic appeals to a consensus on the wrongness of rape and murder which simply does not yet exist on abortion. Creating this consensus is our task. It requires a moral revolution.

And those on the other side will say, “How bad can slavery, or abortion be, if there’s no law against it?”

The way society expresses its disapproval is by outlawing abhorant practices. No law, no disapproval.

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

The way society expresses its disapproval is by outlawing abhorant practices. No law, no disapproval.

This is an important point. In our current situation, we can’t express our disapproval. The courts won’t let us. Restoring legislative power to our elected representatives (where it constitutionally belongs) is the first step back to sanity and democracy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

This is an important point. In our current situation, we can’t express our disapproval. The courts won’t let us. Restoring legislative power to our elected representatives (where it constitutionally belongs) is the first step back to sanity and democracy.

And the first step is to stop fooling ourselves. There no more important issue facing us than the Million Plus innocent lives sacrificed by abortion each year.

We MUST work to nominate and elect pro-life candidates. We must NOT pretend that it’s okay to support either individuals or parties which are pro-abortion.

For those who identify as Democrats, CLEAN UP YOUR PARTY! Get rid of the pro-abortionists and get the pro-abortion plank out of the party platform.

For those who identify as Republicans, PUSH HARDER.

For independents – keep in mind the million plus babies who died that year when you go to the polls.

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

Abortion will only end when our society as a whole finds it immoral and intolerable. Some challenge this claim saying “should rape or murder be legal, then?” This logic appeals to a consensus on the wrongness of rape and murder which simply does not yet exist on abortion. Creating this consensus is our task. It requires a moral revolution.

There are precedents, perhaps the most significant being slavery. In fact, slavery arguably posed an even greater challenge than abortion. For most of human history it had been taken for granted; entire civilizations have relied on it, yet today it is virtually unthinkable. The few glaring exceptions are just that – exceptions, eliciting universal moral outrage.

How did this happen, and what can we learn from it? Two examples worth examining are the U.S. and Britain. Britain went from being a leader in the slave trade to being a leader in Abolition within a single lifetime. The U.S. also abolished slavery, but nearly destroyed itself in the process. Why such different experiences? More importantly, what lessons can we draw from this and apply in our drive to end abortion?

Murder will never “end”. What we want is abortion to be illegal like all other murder.

 

[MikeWM]

miguel:

This is an important point. In our current situation, we can’t express our disapproval. The courts won’t let us. Restoring legislative power to our elected representatives (where it constitutionally belongs) is the first step back to sanity and democracy.

You need a law to show whether you approve of something or not?? How about lobbying, protest groups, word of mouth, blogging, websites, discussion boards? Telling your friends and family considering an abortion that it is the wrong thing to do? Short of physically preventing a woman having an abortion, or blowing up a clinic, you can do pretty much anything you like.

Did the petitioners for civil rights or the abolition of slavery wait until the law was changed before they made their views clear?

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

Here’s one for you – in the Catholic Online Forum ( forum.catholic.org/ )one poster, who claims to be Catholic, said this;

It’s just to point out that the facile equation of “pro-choice” with “pro-abortion” is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Brad]

Slavery and abortion do have excellent parallels.

Both have done irreparable harm to blacks.

Both have divided nations.

Both are based on false promises of hope.

and, we hope that:

Both will be stopped because of the Christian witness of believers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Brad:

Slavery and abortion do have excellent parallels.

Both have done irreparable harm to blacks.

Both have divided nations.

Both are based on false promises of hope.

and, we hope that:

Both will be stopped because of the Christian witness of believers.

One more:

Both were supported by a judicial fiat where a handful of Supreme Court judges imposed their values on the nation – the Dredd Scott decision and Roe v Wade.

 

[D_Quintero]

here is a good site The Arguments of Abortion
I was surprised when I found this one!! Praise GOD :bowdown:
Democrats for life
I can’t believe the greatest value in the world LIFE
Is lower then CHOICE. It is because people are too afraid to mingle with people’s business. They say “let them follow what they want to believe, I am not going to enforce my religion” then I say “ if you saw your friend blindfolded in the middle of the road with a truck coming, would you go and help him? Then they say “ I don’t agree with abortion, but I am not going to keep others from having an abortion” (JOHN KERRY)
Then I would say “ if you saw parents beating up their child, would you not call the police? Isn’t it there choice if they want to beat up there children even if you think it’s wrong?
My Speech teacher was a liberal catholic and it sickened me. But I didn’t have enough guts to say something. :banghead: This year, I will not hesitate.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

One more:

Both were supported by a judicial fiat where a handful of Supreme Court judges imposed their values on the nation – the Dredd Scott decision and Roe v Wade.

And both very bad law, imo.

Not to mention a certain case called Bush v. Gore.

Perhaps there needs to be a movement to reform the scope or powers of the Supreme Court?

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

And both very bad law, imo.

Not to mention a certain case called Bush v. Gore.

Perhaps there needs to be a movement to reform the scope or powers of the Supreme Court?

Mike

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 gives Congress the power to make rules governing how and where the Court exercises it’s jurisdiction. It would be a good thing to simply require all interpretations of the Constitution and laws to be based on Original Intent, only.

If we don’t LIKE original intent, then we amend the Constitution – we don’t pretend we can make it read any way we want.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 gives Congress the power to make rules governing how and where the Court exercises it’s jurisdiction. It would be a good thing to simply require all interpretations of the Constitution and laws to be based on Original Intent, only.

If we don’t LIKE original intent, then we amend the Constitution – we don’t pretend we can make it read any way we want.

Does the ‘mischief rule’ not apply in America? A common way Judges use of interpreting English law is to consider the ‘mischief’ the law was introduced to address, and to interpret the law in that spirit if it is at all unclear.

Personally, I don’t like activist judges. The law ought to be what your elected representatives introduced (yes, Original Intent!). The judiciary are there to uphold the law and enforce it, not make it on the fly.

I think basically we are in agreement on this

Mike

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

The way society expresses its disapproval is by outlawing abhorant practices. No law, no disapproval.

Except that this isn’t the way it happened with slavery. The law came *after *the societal disapproval. Even in the midst of the Civil War, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the rebelling states. All the amendments and laws making slavery illegal happened *after *the war, and it wasn’t even until 100 years later that the Civil Rights amendments guaranteeing equal protection to all citizens came through.

Actually, I think the U.S. experience is more instructive in how not to do things. The Civil war was, arguably, the mark of our failure, not our success. I think the British experience is far more instructive.

One thing I find instructive in the British experience is incrementalism. First the slave trade itself was abolished, and then, after this was accomplished, the abolitionists pushed for emancipation.

The modest success we have experienced with abortion follows a similar pattern. Where we fail is in insisting in all or nothing. Notice, for instance, how when abortion restrictions are struck down, it’s always for lacking an exception for rape, incest, or health. The argument is that these exceptions are too broad. What this overlooks is the massive strategic benefits of having an actual, legally defensible anti-abortion law on the books.

The British abolitionists took it a step at a time, and were successful. Why do we balk at a similar strategy, insisting on perfect impossibilities rather than building off of imperfect possibilities?

 

[fix]

Philip P:

The modest success we have experienced with abortion follows a similar pattern. Where we fail is in insisting in all or nothing. Notice, for instance, how when abortion restrictions are struck down, it’s always for lacking an exception for rape, incest, or health. The argument is that these exceptions are too broad. What this overlooks is the massive strategic benefits of having an actual, legally defensible anti-abortion law on the books.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

 

[Philip_P]

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

That’s informs the end we are trying to achieve. It says nothing about how we are going to get there.

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

…There no more important issue facing us than the Million Plus innocent lives sacrificed by abortion each year.

I agree totally. To approach this rationally, we have to stop fooling ourselves. Rationally means setting priorities…uniting Catholics to fix the worst problem, by far, first. Setting priorities doesn’t mean we ignore other important issues. It just means they have to wait their turn by order of importance. We unite and focus on one “non-negotiable” problem at a time. Otherwise nothing gets done. 1.5 million babies continue to die annually. What could be worse or more urgent than that? If Democrats got the message that Catholics would stop supporting them until they change their stance on this, they would change it over night. They could not afford to lose half the Catholic vote. Something would have to give. It would also give Republicans the overwhelming mandate they need to do something constructive on this issue.
vern humphrey:

…We must NOT pretend that it’s okay to support either individuals or parties which are pro-abortion.

It certainly isn’t OK. And we need our leadership to tell us that unambiguously. Reminding us of our ultimate accountability before the judgement seat of God may not be in vogue, but it nevertheless is something all of us are going to face. We cannot look the other way when our brothers and sisters are being killed by the million. We cannot pretend that anything else takes priority over this. It is our moral duty to protect life and to do it intelligently and effectively. No ifs, ands, or buts.