First of all, thanks, Aaron and Steve, for the responses, both of which are helpful in clarifying this parallel for me. Wilberforce and his “willingness to play the game of politics” is especially interesting to me. Was he influential in drafting laws abolishing slavery? Was he for gradual or sudden (a la our own Emancipation Proclamation) abolition? How entrenched was slavery (not merely the slave ‘trade’--which the U.S. stopped participating in 1808) in England at the time?
But let me bring this back to the United States. At the time of the Lincoln/Douglas debates, there was a range of opinions regarding the issue of slavery. I see four main positions cropping up: 1) slavery is a moral good, justified by the Scriptures (this would be what I would call the true “slaveholder’s position”); 2) slavery is a “right” that citizens of states and territories should be able to “choose” for themselves (Douglas’s position, and one that never answers or thinks one should answer whether slavery is right or wrong); 3) slavery is a moral wrong, but one that nevertheless requires us to have “due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it” (the official position of the Republican party at the time of the ‘58 debates, and thus Lincoln’s own position); and 4) slavery is wrong and thus should be abolished immediately, more or less regardless of circumstances (the extreme “abolitionist” position).
Is this range of positions, this spectrum applicable to our current abortion debate? I think so, and, in fact, without recognition of it, I think any reference to slavery in the abortion debate is destined to be fruitless. For example, Alan Keyes’s dabbling in the “dangerous game” of historical comparisons--his assertion that Obama is “holding the slaveholder’s position”--is clearly a misrepresentation. Obama’s position most closely resembles Douglas’s (2): he has never (to my knowledge) presented abortion itself as a positive good, but rather stated that the “right” to choose it is something he will always protect (as Douglas vowed always to protect the right of states and territories to choose whether or not to make slavery legal.)
It would seem, then, on the topic of abortion, that we have plenty of “abolitionists” and plenty of Stephen Douglases (positions 4 and 2). Where, though, are the Lincolns in all this? Where is “position three“?
3 comments:
Zach,
I think a lot of pro-lifers fall somewhere between 3 and 4 in your little schema. Most pro-lifers hope for the eventual outlawing of all abortion but are willing to chip away at abortion here and there, using various tactics. At times they'll attack abortion in one state. Other times they'll attack a particular method of abortion (e.g. partial-birth abortion). And sometimes they'll try to impose certain restrictions. They do this in the hope of a gradual "abolition."
Steve,
I agree with you that many pro-lifers do "fall somewhere in between" three and four.
However, I can't remember seeing this kind of "moderation" represented in the stated positions of any recent prominent candidate for office.
The presidential race seems a case-in-point. McCain, a moderate in many other respects, was technically extremely "pro-life": he vowed to appoint judges that would (presumably) overturn Roe v. Wade. This position seems to me the very opposite of "gradual abolition."
Do the majority of Americans want to overturn Roe v. Wade? If not, what would be the results from such an overturning? Would this be in the best interests of mothers and their unborn children? Would it stop them from having abortions?
I don't know the answers to these questions. But the thought-experiment doesn't even seem to have been presented by McCain (or other "pro-life" presidents or presidential candidates in recent memory.)
Some more questions:
Are there concessions pro-life legislators can, in good conscience, make to pro-choice opponents? (e.g. like the upholding of the Fugitive Slave Law--which Lincoln supported.)
I have wondered lately about the "health of the mother" clause. (The lack of it--a disputed point-- the reason Obama gave for voting against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.) As McCain said during the debates, "health of the mother can mean just about anything." If a stricter definition of "health" was put in place, and if it were allowed as an exception in otherwise "pro-life" legislation, would more of that legislation pass? Is this compromise be morally acceptable for Christians?
These seem to be questions worth discussing. I'm still working through my own answers to them, but I'd love to hear what you think. (Or you, Aaron, or anybody else out there in cyberspace.)
Here's a relevant link concerning abortion, the pro-life movement, and the analogy to slavery:
http://www.firstthings.com/blog/2009/01/22/for-us-there-is-only-the-trying/
Post a Comment