Abortion and Slavery: A Response to Eduardo

A quick response to Eduardo’s post on abortion and slavery.

Slavery was a great moral evil that plagued our nation from the founding until the conclusion of the Civil War.  Thomas Jefferson, among others, “shuddered to think God just” (Notes on virginia) because he knew God would not be pleased with a nation that supported the slave license.  Yet, the founding generation allowed slavery, dealing in the art of possible.  In doing so, they set up a system of government that was basically just and good but which was infected by a dangerous cancer.  How to respond to this cancer that threatened the whole body?  Some, as mentioned in earlier posts, chose aggressive methods, preferring to meet the cancer with violence.  Others preferred less aggressive methods, preferring to isolate and quarantine the cancer in the belief that it would eventually shrivel up and die.  This was Lincoln’s approach until the cancer went into its own aggressive stage threatening to immediately kill the body (the u.s.). 

Abortion (the intentional killing of innocent and helpless human beings) is a great moral evil today.  Although not quite as candid as jefferson, even pro-choicers recognize this to some extent when they say that abortion ought to be safe, legal, and rare.  Why rare if the act of abortion is morally good or morally neutral?  We continue to have a system of government that is basically just and good but a new form of cancer started growing within the body in the 1960’s.  In 1973, in a moment of judicial malpractice (and again in 1992 (Casey) and 2001 (Carhart)), the Court declared that this growth was benign, even beneficial to the body, and forbid other agents of government, state or federal, from treating the growth as cancerous. 

How should those who see the truth – that a culture of abortion like a culture of slavery is a dangerous cancer threatening the body – react?  Eduardo seems to suggest that the only possibilities for a true pro-lifer are to kill the patient (such a government would be “unworthy of obedience”) or, at the very least, to attack the cancer with the most aggressive and even violent means possible.  Are these the only legitimate possible treatments?  Like the abolitionists in the 19^th century, pro-lifers can, consistent with their positions, reasonably believe that less violent means of treating the cancer provide the best chance of bringing it into remission (until it rears its ugly head in some new form 75 or 100 years from now).  As with slavery in the 19^th century, one of the problems is that a large part of the body does not see the growth as cancerous so we have to treat a patient who is suffering from denial.  The growth of the cancer must be slowed and reversed while trying to convince the patient that he has cancer.  A difficult and delicate task that requires much patience. 

Pax, Michael S.