“I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.”

With these words, Ronald Reagan sometimes began speeches that he gave in support of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Today, I hope to follow in the steps of a great American President. In this column, I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this. Sometimes, hard things must be said.

More than 150 years ago, Thomas Hart Benton addressed the question of slavery in a Senate speech: “We read in Holy Writ, that a certain people were cursed by the plague of frogs, and that the plague was everywhere! You could not look upon the table but there were frogs, you could not sit down at the banquet but there were frogs, you could not go to the bridal couch and lift the sheets but there were frogs!” In short, he concluded, “We can see nothing, touch nothing, have no measures proposed, without having this pestilence thrust before us. Here it is, this black question, forever on the table, on the nuptial couch, everywhere!”

Benton’s statement applies with equal force today, but in a different context: Will America be a “pro-choice” nation or a “pro-life” nation?  At times, it seems as if the question dominates every debate. Political candidates must address the issue satisfactorily if they are to be elected. Health care funding and research issues are impacted. Even international relations feel ramifications at times. And, always, there is one area in which the topic should not be important, but inevitably it dominates the entire discussion: judicial nominations.

If only the similarities between the abortion and slavery debates ended there. But they do not. Indeed, these issues may justly be called the two great moral crises in American history. Consider the shocking list of parallels:

Pro-slavery advocates sought to keep slavery legal by classifying an entire group of human beings as “not persons.” So do pro-abortionists.

Pro-slavery advocates argued that they would be subject to domination without the institution of slavery. The South claimed it would economically be subject to Northern industrial interests. Today, pro-abortion advocates argue that women will be subject to domination without the abortion industry. Women will be subject to the Patriarchy.

Pro-slavery advocates used the Supreme Court to have its will imposed on the rest of the country when legislative processes were not working. Dred Scott v. Sandford was the result of judicial activism by slavery advocates. Today, pro-abortionists do the same. Roe v. Wade was the result.

Pro-slavery advocates acted as they did for essentially selfish reasons. Southerners wanted economic gain. Pro-abortionists are similarly selfish. They want to have sex when they want, how they want, without apology or ramification.

Pro-slavery advocates strove to make their views more acceptable by wrapping them up in the prettier language of choice. In the 1800s, southerners spoke of “states rights” and “property rights,” allowing them to make morally reprehensible decisions without interference. Today, pro-abortionists also spin their position as one of “choice.” Women speak of “my body, my choice,” allowing themselves to make morally reprehensible decisions without interference.

The shocking immorality of abortion has been driven home with particular force, for this author at least, in recent months. On a personal note, my husband and I are expecting our first baby in a week or two. Throughout the process, we’ve been overwhelmed with how real our daughter is. Mere weeks after we discovered we were pregnant, we could see her heartbeat on a sonogram. A few weeks later, we were able to see her, again. We were overwhelmed with her humanness. Her little fingers and toes clenched and unclenched as the doctor counted them to be sure she had 10 of each. She yawned. She pulled away from the doctor when he poked at her. A later 4D sonogram was even more overpowering. She appears to have my nose, and she apparently has her parents’ quite stubborn temperament. That little girl was not at all pleased about being woken up! She grimaced and looked upset when the technician tried to get her to turn around. She yawned again. Her eyes opened, briefly, but she was determined to stay asleep (like I said, stubborn). But we don’t know our baby only through sonograms. Little baby hiccups have been a pretty constant phenomenon, at least for our daughter. She’s been getting them half a dozen times a day for months now. She has a particular favorite corner of my uterus, apparently, up in the right hand side, uncomfortably close to my ribs. Her little baby butt pokes up at me every once in a while, and I can tell that she has retreated to her favorite spot.

Throughout most of these experiences, remember, it would have been perfectly legal for me to obtain an abortion.

Some will be shocked, for which I am glad. Unfortunately, too many Americans are willing to write off my “right” to kill my daughter as my “choice.”

Americans pulled through the moral crisis of the 1800s, correctly deciding to recognize all American men and women as human beings, fully protected by the Constitution, regardless of their race. Indeed, today, we are rightfully shocked that anyone could ever have viewed slavery as defensible. Here’s hoping that a day will soon come when all Americans recognize the indefensibility of labeling one group of individuals as “not persons,” allowing them to be killed, simply because they are younger and more vulnerable than the rest of us.

Tara Ross will be taking a brief break from her column, as she and her husband Adam celebrate the birth of their daughter, Emma. Look for her columns again in the fall.

Comments (16)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment