Skip to content

Sure to be a Controversial Post

December 6, 2012

Have you ever asked yourself what your stand on slavery would have been if you lived a hundred years ago? Naturally with our modern outlook on life, we like to think we’d be staunch abolitionists.  But if we realize we’d actually have the sensibilities of person from that era, we might become less sure.  What would we think with a brain of the times?

I don’t believe you need to wonder.  I think a modern litmus test serves to answer the question.  I already know that many readers of this post will be outraged that I could suggest such a thing… but that’s never stopped me from suggesting anything, so here we go:

Your stance on abortion will tell you what your stance on slavery would have been a hundred years ago.  If you are against abortion, you would have been against slavery.  If you are pro-choice, you would have supported slavery.

What an audacious claim!  Maybe so, but the exact same arguments are used to support the issues of both eras.

  • It’s my body, no one has the right to control my body but me…. contrasted with…  It’s my plantation/business/estate and no one has the right to make my choices for me.
  • It’s inconvenient (and expensive!),  my body won’t be able to do the things I want to do and it will get big and ugly….  My plantation will fail, it won’t be able to be worked to full productivity and I won’t make as much money!
  • It’s just a collection of cells; it isn’t human yet….   They aren’t really human, after all.
  • No child should be born unwanted; abortion is better than living a horrible life!…  It’s not like they can live on their own; they have a much better life as slaves.
  • It’s none of your business! Keep your hands of my body!….   It’s not your business, keep your hands off my profits!

As opposed to the pro-life stance:

  • That’s a baby, a human life who is meant to be born!…  They are human and were meant to be free!
  • Your body is important, but life trumps your comfort…  Your business is important but freedom trumps your profits!
  • Every baby can be wanted by someone; better to have the opportunity for life than to end it without knowing….  If they can run your plantation, they can run their own; better to be free and have opportunity for life than be a slave and never find out!

You might say that young women are afraid of something so devastating and plantation owners weren’t.  As someone who watched his business fail, I assure you, fear is involved there, too, and it is just as life-changing.

A hundred years ago you had people actively promote slavery and others who knew it was wrong but did nothing — the first was immoral.  The second was also immoral.

There were other people who stood up against slavery and actively opposed it until abolition.

All three people exist today, too.

So would you have been for slavery?  And if slavery was wrong despite all the reasons used to support it, isn’t abortion wrong too?

3 Comments leave one →
  1. Allura permalink
    December 6, 2012 9:36 pm

    Awesome!!!!!!! Thank you for your stand for life. I use that argument all the time at the abortion mills…but you put it far more eloquently than I ever could. God bless you.

  2. December 7, 2012 4:18 pm

    I don’t think I much want to touch the thrust of this post, because your comparison very much hinges on whether one regards an embryo or fetus with the same status as an adult human being. If so, perhaps your comparison holds water. If not.. not. 🙂

    Tangentially, though, I think what bothers me most about the pro-life crowd is that they seem to have things completely backwards. Me, I tend to think that AFTER birth is when we need to afford children the most attention and resources and protection. Pro-lifers on the whole seem to be concerned right up to the point of birth–and then those babies are on their own.

    I mean, if you want to be against abortion, that’s great–don’t get one. if you want to force your view on others who might choose otherwise, I think that’s problematic, but at least we can maybe presume your heart is in the right place. But when you insist that all possible babies be born while also giving short shrift to the life they’re being born into? It is an incongruous and rather shameful position to defend. And when you’re simultaneously working to make it harder for women to obtain non-abortive ways to avoid pregnancy, while also seeking to eviscerate government aid to children born into poverty and underfund the public education system that represents the way out of poverty? That crosses right over into evil and despicable.

    And it doesn’t even make sense from a budgetary perspective. In Texas, for example, lawmakers recently stripped $70 million in funding from Planned Parenthood. The Texas Health & Human Services commission now estimates the result will be nearly 24,000 additional children born to low-income (and often single) women. The new price tag? $273 million in additional medical and Medicaid expenses to be borne by taxpayers. Of course, the so-called compassionate conservatives would probably prefer to cut that aid off as well.

    In short, you can restrict abortion, you can restrict other means of birth control, or you can shred the social safety net and means of social mobility for poor mothers and their children. But trying to do all three at once is, in my opinion, far more inhumane than abortion itself could ever be.

  3. December 7, 2012 8:17 pm

    Kelly, you just proved my point. Your concerns flow right down the list of reasons used for abortion and slavery:
    Not human (my comparison is that people who DON’T regard live human embryos as human ((what else could they be?)) WOULDN’T consider slaves human)

    Further you presume:
    Pro-lifers don’t care about the conditions a child is born into (and thereby killing it is acceptable) – a woefully incorrect presumption.
    Government is the only safety net
    Birth control is a societal cost, not a personal cost
    It is somehow unfair to consider condoms a fair means of birth control
    Birth control is the only way to avoid pregnancy
    We should subsidize irresponsibility
    Adoption isn’t a strong means for placing kids out of poverty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: