Over at CNS News on Monday Lynn Wardle wrote an interesting and important piece detailing the FACT that slavery and elective abortion are in deed morally equivalent.
Wardle points out that the same arguments used by the slavery defenders of the mid-19th Century are appearing again, this time on the lips and posters of the abortion defending liberals. He perfectly dissects the striking similarities between the two groups of humanity denying oppressors, while deriding the hypocrisy with which both groups defended their positions. It’s a masterful assault on the liberal orthodoxy concerning abortion, and it’s an argument that needs to be repeated over and over again in the halls of Congress, on the steps of Capitol buildings, and in our private conversations.
The normative significance of abortion-on-demand is comparable in many ways to the normative significance of slavery.
Slavery rejects the humanity of slaves, while abortion rejections the humanity of children in the womb.
Slavery denies the personhood of slaves; abortion denies the personhood of children in utero.
Slavery was based upon the lie that slavery was best for the slaves; likewise, abortion is based upon the lie that abortion is best for unwanted children.
Defenders of slavery argued that the government had no right to tell slave-owners what to do with their bodies (the bodies of slaves they owned), and defenders of elective abortion argue that government has no right to tell women carrying unborn children what to do with their bodies (and the bodies of those children).
Opponents of slavery argued that it was unfair to impose the burden of abolition upon one class (white slave-owners), while opponents of abortion restrictions argue that it is unfair to impose the burden of abortion restriction upon one class (women who want abortions).
Opponents of abolition argued that slaves were not real “persons,” and advocates of elective abortion (like Justice Blackmun in his 1973 opinion for the Court in Roe v. Wade) argue that unborn children are not “persons” in the whole sense, either.
Opponents of abolition argued that if lawmakers would leave slavery alone, it would gradually disappear; and opponents of abortion restrictions argue now that if lawmakers will leave abortion alone, it will recede and fade away.
Defenders of slavery engaged in the vigorous suppression of abolitionist speech. Likewise, defenders of elective abortion impose draconian limits upon pro-life free speech.
Southerners considered abolitionists to be religious fanatics. Today, supporters of elective abortion consider advocates of reasonable abortions restrictions to be religious fanatics.
Lincoln asked “Is a man not a man because he is Black?” Pro-lifers today ask: “Is a child not a child because she is living in the womb?”
Abortion is the moral litmus test of our generation’s commitment to equality – the equal worth of all human beings. It has tremendous implications for how our nation treats and will treat other classes of inconvenient, unwanted human lives.
Also, check out Abolish Human Abortion.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com