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

[miguel]

MikeWM:

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

I’m all for shouting it from the roof tops, but our goal should be to re-enact legislative restrictions with criminal penalties.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

IIt 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.

On the Catholic Online Forum, I find people claiming to be Catholic who deny that the Democratic Party has a pro-abortion plank. When I cut and paste the plank, they say it’s not “pro-abortion,” only “pro-choice.” (As if there were a difference.)

With Catholics like this, who needs enemies?

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

On the Catholic Online Forum, I find people claiming to be Catholic who deny that the Democratic Party has a pro-abortion plank. When I cut and paste the plank, they say it’s not “pro-abortion,” only “pro-choice.” (As if there were a difference.)

With Catholics like this, who needs enemies?

If I’m a baby being killed, what good is it to me if you’re “pro-choice” and not “pro-abortion”?

 

[Philip_P]

miguel:

If I’m a baby being killed, what good is it to me if you’re “pro-choice” and not “pro-abortion”?

If I’m a baby being killed, what good is it to be if you’re a “pro-life” politician who is completely ineffective at saving my life?

I think we can safely assume the overwhelming majority of those on these boards believe abortion is wrong. No need to remind us why it is wrong or try to prove it. The type of discussion I’m trying to spark is a strategic one - given that the goal is to end abortion, how do we accomplish it? Let’s see if we can have more suggestions that deal with this (and back it up with evidence or reasonable historical parallels), and less with reminders that abortion is wrong. We all already know that.

 

[Philip_P]

miguel:

I’m all for shouting it from the roof tops, but our goal should be to re-enact legislative restrictions with criminal penalties.

Given the actual existing conditions, and not some utopian ones, how do you propose we accomplish this? I think some restrictions certainly are possible today - if pro-lifers are willing to support legislation that allows exceptions. Refusing anything less than a full ban on abortion is a nice symbolic gesture, but accomplishes nothing.

Let’s talk about strategies that actually have a chance of success.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

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

I guess my point was that many think changing the law will have little effect. I was pointing out we need to change the law. How that gets done is an ongoing battle and changing the supreme court justices will help.

 

[miguel]

Philip P:

If I’m a baby being killed, what good is it to me if you’re a “pro-life” politician who is completely ineffective at saving my life?

If I’m a baby being killed, what good is it to me if you are a “pro-life” Catholic who keeps voting for the party of abortion?

 

[miguel]

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?

I don’t think the British had slavery on British soil. They were engaged in the slave trade. And had it in their colonies. But once they took the abolitionist position, they didn’t have to fight a civil war to uproot it from their own soil. Effecting change when powerful interests are entrenched makes civil war more likely. I don’t think this is anywhere near the same situation with abortion. We don’t have powerful economic interests at stake in abolishing it.

 

[Ahimsa]

miguel:

We don’t have powerful economic interests at stake in abolishing it.

No powerful economic interests? What about the fact that raising a baby costs lots of mullah? Some people might see the abortion choice as a from of economic self-determination.

 

[miguel]

Ahimsa:

No powerful economic interests? What about the fact that raising a baby costs lots of mullah? Some people might see the abortion choice as a from of economic self-determination.

Maybe I’m wrong on this. But I was trying to compare it with the slavery issue. The Southern economy at the time of the civil war was dependent on the labor of millions of slaves. That’s what I mean by powerful economic interest. We don’t have such a dependency on abortion. Certainly Planned Parenthood has an economic stake in it. But PP is not a huge economic interest in this country. Sure, there are alot of people who would like to see the status quo on abortion maintained. But their economic livelihood doesn’t absolutely depend on it the way the Southern economy once depended on slavery.

 

[Philip_P]

I agree that the issue of major economic interests is a major difference between slavery and abortion. In the U.S, the southern economy was entirely dependent on it, and many northern cities and regions also had a significant economic stakes. Southern plantation owners used New York banks, for instance.

Britain also had strong economic interests in slavery. The West Indies were a major economic engine in the empire and depended on slaves (in addition to the trade itself being quite profitable). However, I think it *is *significant that slavery was almost non-existent in England itself, were the abolition movement was based. Thinking about this is one of the things that prompted my original post. Why is it that it is precisely were slavery was least entrenched that the movement to end it was the strongest? Is it valid to draw a parallel to abortion - that is, might it prove that if abortion occured with much less frequency it would be easier to push for its abolition? I don’t think it’s quite that simple, but perhaps asking these questions can lead us toward some better answers.

 

[Philip_P]

fix:

I guess my point was that many think changing the law will have little effect. I was pointing out we need to change the law. How that gets done is an ongoing battle and changing the supreme court justices will help.

Do you see changing the court as an absolute prerequisite? If so, why? (not trying to be dismissive here, just trying to get beyond the standard rehashed arguments).

 

[Brad]

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.

Excellent point. I thought there was a big one I was missing.

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

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?

It’s hardly perfect and it is not impossible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by Philip P
*

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?*

It’s hardly perfect and it is not impossible.

The “we” Phillip refers to is the leadership of the Democratic Party.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Originally Posted by Philip P

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?

The “we” refers to us as Americans, especially concerned with abortion. Why you insist on warping everything through a partisan lense is beyond me. If all you want to do is let the world know you hate Democrats, please find another thread instead of trying to derail discussion here. Others on this thread have been making a good-faith effort at dialoguing. Why don’t you try to follow their example?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

vern humphrey:

The “we” refers to us as Americans, especially concerned with abortion. Why you insist on warping everything through a partisan lense is beyond me. If all you want to do is let the world know you hate Democrats, please find another thread instead of trying to derail discussion here. Others on this thread have been making a good-faith effort at dialoguing. Why don’t you try to follow their example?

Look at the leadership of the Democratic Party.

I call on the adherents of BOTH parties to clean up their act – but cannot find Democrats willing to do that.

 

[Hildebrand]

Philip P:

Do you see changing the court as an absolute prerequisite? If so, why? (not trying to be dismissive here, just trying to get beyond the standard rehashed arguments).

That is the reality we face. The Supreme Court has the power over deciding what is constitutional and what is not.

The other option is having a revolution, I think no one wants that.

So those are our options: (1) a revolution or (2) bring the court back to original intent, not inventing constitutional rights as they go.

ALL of our efforts are subject to a hearing before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can decide if we are to be thrown in prison and our property taken away for protesting abortion. They decide if our laws against abortion are constitutional. They can decide everything.

And you are still wondering why we “see changing the court as an absolute prerequisite”?

And it is not a prerequisite, it is a co-requisite, along with electing pro-life politicians.

You need pro-life politicians to pass pro-life legislation. And you equally need a pro-life Supreme Court so the Supreme Court does not rule the pro-life legislation unconstitutional.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Philip P:

Look at the leadership of the Democratic Party.

I call on the adherents of BOTH parties to clean up their act – but cannot find Democrats willing to do that.

If you want to talk about voting, there’s already a thread for that. This deals more with strategy, and especially with attempts to draw lessons for an effective pro-life strategy based off of the historical experience of Abolition.

Asking us to “look at the leadership of the Democratic Party” doesn’t really tell us much. Why not then go a step further and tell us what we’re supposed to be looking for, what should be happening, and then giving us an argument for why this will work and what it will accomplish.

 

[Philip_P]

Hildebrand:

That is the reality we face. The Supreme Court has the power over deciding what is constitutional and what is not.

The other option is having a revolution, I think no one wants that.

So those are our options: (1) a revolution or (2) bring the court back to original intent, not inventing constitutional rights as they go.

ALL of our efforts are subject to a hearing before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can decide if we are to be thrown in prison and our property taken away for protesting abortion. They decide if our laws against abortion are constitutional. They can decide everything.

And you are still wondering why we “see changing the court as an absolute prerequisite”?

And it is not a prerequisite, it is a co-requisite, along with electing pro-life politicians.

You need pro-life politicians to pass pro-life legislation. And you equally need a pro-life Supreme Court so the Supreme Court does not rule the pro-life legislation unconstitutional.

Keeping with our historical parallels, then, did Dredd Scott make the Abolition movement untenable? I usually hear that case paired with Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed as its opposite, but that was in 1954 - long after abolition and Emancipation (though not before true equal protection under the law was granted).

Put another way, must RVW be overturned *before *we can make real progress in ending abortion, or is it more likely that abortions will significantly decrease first, undermining support for RVW and so making its reversal more likely?