Aaron offered me the opportunity to post months ago. I’ve been enjoying the fruits of others’ wonderings and so figured I’d offer a wondering of my own (a wandering wondering at that) in the hopes that some of you all might offer your own insights on the subject.In preparation for a graduate class at CUA called the “Eloquence of Lincoln,” I have been reading a good deal of Lincoln’s writings--consisting of letters and speeches mostly. I’ve been especially impressed and intrigued by his part in the debates with Stephen Douglas, when he ran for (and lost) the Illinois senate seat in 1858.
A cliff’s notes of the debaters’ key positions: Lincoln holds that slavery is a moral wrong, and that its being allowed to flourish in the new territories (Kansas and Nebraska) goes against the Founders’ initial vision of the institution as an inherited evil. (This position naturally puts him at odds with the Dred Scott decision equating slaves with “property.”) Douglas, meanwhile, refusing to ever publicly state whether or not slavery is “right” or “wrong,” campaigns on “the great principle of popular sovereignty”: what is important in this debate is that the people of a given state or a territory must have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery (or other institutions and laws) have binding power.
The introduction to my copy of the debates (ed. Robert Johannsen) warns that “it is a dangerous game to search for present day problems in past history; those who seek will generally find, regardless of the record.” This may be so. It may also be an interesting gloss on Lincoln and Douglas. (Lincoln’s assertion that the equality of all men--including slaves--is held by the “Founders”; and Douglas’ that the Founders’ always understood that declaration to exclude blacks, both seem to me to be an interpretations. In the case of Lincoln, the interpretation is revolutionary; in the case of Douglas, deeply conservative. The seeds for both positions, though, do seem to be present in the writings and actions of the “Founders.” Although I’d be happy to hear other arguments on this point.)
In any event the results of Lincoln’s presidency, which got its start in “searching for present day problems in past history” could certainly be described as “dangerous,” as well as salutary for the country. So, perhaps, might a thorough comparison between the case of slavery and the case of abortion.
My brother recently pointed me to the 2004 Illinois debates between now President-elect Obama and often-presidential nominee Alan Keyes. (I’m guessing you, Steve, have already had a pretty good taste of them.) The debates are spirited, certainly fascinating to consider in light of the historical moment we’re in now. Neither Keyes nor Obama (in my opinion) rises to anything close to what Lincoln and Douglas gave us in 1858. Keyes did, though, in his typically controversial manner, introduce the parallel I’m interested in, beginning his campaign in Illinois by dropping this bomb:
"I would still be picking cotton if the country's moral principles had not been shaped by the Declaration of Independence," Keyes said. He said Obama "has broken and rejected those principles — he has taken the slaveholder's position."
In the (many) YouTube clips I watched on the ‘04 debates, I didn’t hear this statement greatly fleshed out, which to me, is a shame. A “fleshing out” of this and other possible parallels is my goal here. Which comparisons are helpful to make from this moment, which ones are not? Why or why not?
(For example, I do not find Keyes’ comment about the “slaveholder’s position” helpful. Obama’s question about this view seems valid to me: if O. is supporting the slaveholder’s position by supporting the “woman’s right to choose,” wouldn’t that then make the woman the “slaveholder” and the unborn child the “slave”? If this is the case, it is difficult to see how the powerless position of many women who choose to abort their children is comparable to the powerful position of the slaveholders.)
In order that I don’t go on overlong, I end with an example of a distinction and reflection of the kind that (may) be fruitful in “fleshing out” this parallel:
For instance: The institution of slavery, as Lincoln points out, was a colonial inheritance of Britain and not something that was made or enacted by the new nation. (An evil that was tolerated.) This is different from abortion, a procedure that, while it may not be ‘new,’ is new insofar as it is legally protected. This difference suggests that a (not unprecedented) moral resurgence in its citizenry would be necessary for the institution of abortion to be abolished.
Any thoughts on this? Very rambling, I know. My first-ever blog post.
Steve, I was curious to know if you knew much about the legal history of Roe v. Wade and could comment on its relationship to the key legal cases on slavery.
One final thought: has anyone here seen Tony Kaye’s Lake of Fire? Best (and only) documentary I’ve seen on the issue of abortion.
2 comments:
With regards to the power or powerlessness of pregnant mothers and slave owners: I think the difference between them is not so great. Believe it or not, many slave owners felt besieged and threatened by the slave population they kept in bondage – and perhaps with good reason. Though we, in hindsight, see slave owners as a powerful class, they did not always see themselves that way. Likewise, while pregnant mothers seeking abortions often see themselves as powerless in desperate situations – again, not without some reason – they also hold huge power, the power of life and death, over their child. In each case, it’s a mixed bag, and perception is a major factor.
I like your insight that slavery was inherited by the US, while abortion was created by us. Running with that a bit: Britain created the slave trade (well, not all by herself, but she definitely did not inherit it from anyone, ancient Roman slavery being a considerably different beast from modern trade in African slaves) but she also abolished it and even became a major international crusader against the slave trade. Well, for one thing, brave men like William Wilberforce stood up for what was right. Secondly, folks like Wilberforce educated the public on the horrors of slavery. Third, Wilberforce was willing to play the game of politics, never compromising his principles, but never tiring of a new vote or a new petition drive. It was a long road, but he pulled it off.
Unfortunately, I don't know a whole lot about constitutional law, because I don't take that course until next fall. All I know is that Roe v. Wade was based on a constitutional "right of privacy," which was applied to birth control in Griswold v. Connecticut. What's strange is that the Supreme Court spoke of a constitutional right of privacy, even though the oldest discussion of such a right is in a famous law-review article by Brandeis from 1890. That article basically argued that the right of privacy was implicit in the common law (not necessarily the Constitution), such as in the law of defamation.
As it stands now, as far as I can tell, whether a baby actually legally exists depends entirely on the will of the mother. For instance, if a man does not want his girlfriend to bear his child, he still has to pay child support if she wants to keep the child. However, if the woman decides to abort her baby against the father's will, she can have an abortion. Obviously not a satisfying conclusion.
Constitutional law is always tricky, because it's basically the Supreme Court making up the rules as it goes along. One way to see this is that in many of these controversial abortion cases (Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, etc.), or even in cases dealing with other controversial constitutional issues (e.g., Bush v. Gore), there is often no clear majority opinion. Instead, it's just a bunch of justices writing their own opinions and not agreeing on what the law actually is. Five justices will agree on a final outcome for a case, but cannot decide on what grounds they should reach that outcome. It's a mess.
Post a Comment