The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Analogy of Abortion and Slavery

There are many social policies that have contrasting viewpoints in which compromise is an acceptable solution. However, there are some issues that are fundamental and not subject to compromise. Fundamental in that they bear on the Natural or Human rights of a person, which cannot be compromised. One such issue is Abortion, of which I have written my thoughts in my “The Abortion Question” article. The fundamental question of Abortion is what, if any, are the natural or human rights of the unborn. For you must answer this question before you can determine our social policy on Abortion. To not answer this question is to avoid this question and not determine the proper social policy regarding Abortion.

The fundamental question of the Natural or Human Rights of the unborn has three possible answers as follows:

1. The unborn child is not human and not entitled to human rights until it is born, and the umbilical cord is severed, and the baby is surviving on its own.
2. The unborn child is not human until sometime during gestation, at which time it becomes human. Prior to this time, the unborn child is not entitled to human rights. After this time, the unborn child is human and is entitled to human rights.
3. At the time of conception, the unborn child has the genome of a human being, and unique to within itself, and therefore is a human being deserving of human rights.

"Whenever this question will be settled" Abraham Lincoln said of the question of slavery in New Haven, Connecticut on March 6, 1860, "it must be settled on some philosophical basis. No policy that does not rest upon some philosophical public opinion can be permanently maintained."

The fundamental philosophical question of slavery was the Natural Rights of the negro. Natural rights for the negro that were not being addressed but were being impacted by compromises on this issue. The supporters of slavery believed it was not an issue of Natural Rights but of State, Popular Sovereignty, and Property Rights (as I have commented upon in my Chirp on, “09/16/20 Popular Sovereignty and States Rights”). They had three reasons that they believed slavery was an issue of State, Popular Sovereignty, and Property Rights and that no Natural Rights were being violated:

1. As the Constitution allowed for slavery to exist (see my article on “Slavery in the United States Constitution”) it was up to the States to determine if slavery was permissible in their States, and Congress had no legal authority to address the issue of slavery as it was a States Rights issue. It was, therefore, up to the people of the State or Territory to determine if slavery was to be allowed.
2. As slaves were considered property, they could be transported and retained as slave property in any State, and eventually, in any U.S. Territory, as was true for any other property that a person owned.
3. The negro was a sub-species of humans, deficient in moral and intellectual capacity to be fully human, and they were better off as slaves than they would be if they were free. And as sub-species, they were not entitled to Natural nor Constitutional Rights.

By the supporters of slavery framing the fundamental question as a State, Popular Sovereignty, and Property Rights issue, they could ignore the fundamental question of the Natural Rights of the negro. They also believed that they could assert their Property Rights in any State or Territory in America, which led to tensions between the Northern and Southern States as well as the supporters and opponents of slavery. Many Americans held no firm position or vacillated on the issue of slavery, rarely considered it an issue of Natural Rights, and simply desired a compromise to maintain peace on the issue of slavery.

Henry Clay Sr. (April 12, 1777 – June 29, 1852) was an American attorney and statesman who represented Kentucky in both the Senate and House. He was the seventh House Speaker and the ninth Secretary of State. He received electoral votes for president in the 1824, 1832, and 1844 presidential elections. He also helped found both the National Republican Party and the Whig Party. For his role in defusing sectional crises, he earned the appellation of the "Great Compromiser" and was part of the "Great Triumvirate." Henry Clay attempted to fashion a comprise that would diffuse the issue of slavery in America. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery north of the 36°30′ parallel except for Missouri. This compromise was held until the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was a territorial act that created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. It was drafted by Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas, passed by the 33rd United States Congress, and signed into law by President Franklin Pierce. Douglas introduced the bill with the goal of opening up new lands to development and facilitating the construction of a transcontinental railroad, but the Kansas–Nebraska Act is most notable for effectively repealing the Missouri Compromise, stoking national tensions over slavery, and contributing to a series of armed conflicts known as "Bleeding Kansas".

The Kansas-Nebraska Act provoked Abraham Lincoln to reenter politics in opposition to this act, as he had a lifetime aversion to slavery and wished for it to end. The Dred Scott Supreme Court decision of 1857 furthered his opposition to slavery, which led to his Lincoln’s House Divided speech on June 16, 1858, on the eve of the Lincoln–Douglas debates. The Lincoln–Douglas debates further elaborated his opposition to slavery as a fundamental violation of the Natural Rights of the negro.

As Abraham Lincoln said in his House Divided speech:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South."
- Abraham Lincoln

To Lincoln, the fundamental question was the Natural Rights of the negro, a fundamental question that was only answered by the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

Today, the fundamental philosophical question on abortion that needs to be answered is the Natural Rights of the unborn child. There are many issues and concerns surrounding this question, as I have pointed out in my “Abortion” article. But these issues and concerns can only be properly addressed after the fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of the unborn child are answered. And today, the answer to this question of the fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of the unborn child splits the American people into the three groups of the three possible answers as I have outlined previously. And these three groups on the answers to abortion are analogous to the three groups on the answers to slavery.

The first group is those abortion supporters who believe that it is an issue of the right of the mother to determine the rights of the unborn and that abortion should be permitted at any time based upon her decision. This is analogous to those people who believed that slavery was an issue of State, Popular Sovereignty, and Property Rights and was to be permitted wherever the people should decide to allow slavery.

The second group is those that believe that an unborn child is not human until it reaches a point in its gestation that it becomes human. Abortion is permissible before this point, but not allowed after this point, except in the cases of a danger to the life and health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. This is analogous to those people who believed that slavery was permissible in some parts of America but forbidden in other parts of America.

The third group is those anti-abortionists that believe that an unborn child is human from the point of conception and that no abortions should be permitted. This is analogous to those people who believed that slavery was an issue of Natural Rights and should not be allowed in all cases.

Many Americans are of the opinions of the second group. However, many in this second group are not of this opinion because of careful consideration, but of a desire for compromise and accommodation. They wish that the issue of abortion would diffuse and not intrude upon the body politic. They believe that with a compromise that gives something to both sides, they can achieve an accommodation that will satisfy both sides. They also believe that if they allow the mother to make the abortion decision, it will avert the public gaze on abortion and becalm the abortion issue. But by not making a philosophical decision on an issue of a fundamental philosophical basis of Natural Rights is equivalent to making a decision. And this non-decision decision is usually to the detriment of Natural Rights, for you must be proactive in defense of Natural Rights, or you may lose or severely constrain your Natural Rights. Or, to paraphrase the statement, ‘Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty’ to ‘Eternal defense of Natural Rights is the cost of maintaining Natural Rights’. For if you can violate the Natural Rights of one person or one group of persons, then you can violate the rights of any person or any group of persons as you see fit.

Where you stand on abortion rights is analogous to where you would have stood on the issue of slavery, for it is a stance on the fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of the unborn child. It is not a question of religious beliefs, although your religious beliefs can mold your stance on abortion just as religious beliefs molded the stance of many Americans on slavery. It is only a question of Natural Rights, irrespective of any other considerations. And my beliefs are not religious-based or mansplaining, but are based on the fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of an unborn child. And I will brook no discussion or debate on the other considerations of abortion until the issue of the fundamental philosophical basis of abortion is resolved. As these other considerations are of secondary importance, and as they cannot be answered until you answer the fundamental philosophical basis of abortion, it is useless and time-consuming to discuss these other considerations until we have resolved the fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of the unborn child.

Consequently, we have a House Divided situation. A House Divided on our inability to resolve the fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of the unborn child. A House Divided that cannot stand as abortion needs a fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of the unborn child, just as slavery needed a fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of the slave to be resolved. And fundamental philosophical basis cannot be resolved by compromises but only by resolving the fundamental philosophical basis. Abortion is not any other issue but the issue of the fundamental Natural Rights of the unborn child. Just as the fundamental Natural Rights of slaves took several decades to resolve, it has been several decades in which we have struggled to resolve the fundamental Natural Rights issue of abortion. Until this issue is resolved, we are a House Divided. A house that cannot stand until we resolve the fundamental philosophical basis of the Natural Rights of the unborn child. Let us hope that it will not take a Civil War to resolve the issue of abortion, but it may take a Constitutional Amendment to resolve the Natural Rights of the unborn child.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "No policy that does not rest upon some philosophical public opinion can be permanently maintained". Therefore, we must decide the fundamental philosophical basis on abortion, and reach a philosophical public opinion on abortion. As for me, I believe that the unborn child is human from conception, as I have argued in my “The Abortion Question” article. As an unborn child has a unique human genome that is uniquely human unto itself it is, consequently, a unique human that is endowed with the fundamental philosophical basis of Natural Rights, most especially the Natural Right to Life. I would, therefore, support a Constitutional Amendment that resolves the issue of abortion that states:

“The Natural and Constitutional Rights of the people shall be in force from the moment of the conception of a child. Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, this Amendment.”