Would Abdul Hakim-Shabazz advocate this philosophy; a philosophy once held by many politically influential people in regards to slavery?
A local Indianapolis political blogger, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz posted an article late last week titled: A Job is a Social Issue. It takes a different view on job creation and rightly discerns the topic as a social issue. So I have no criticism for the premise and conclusion that is drawn. The re-framing of the economics of job creation as a social issue is worth considering and further developing.
But, somehow I came across the comments section, and posted within, is a witty but outrageously illogical response to another commenter. Mr.Shabazz responded “if you don’t like abortion or gay marriage, don’t get one”. Left unstated is the commonly repeated libertarian phrase “but don’t tell me or others what we can and cannot do.” As if abortion and gay marriage were like smoking or wearing a seat belt.
I am not going to address the gay marriage aspect since I have done so on several previous occasions with great clarity. There will be many, many more opportunities to expose that fallacy as well. For now, I want to offer a counter-example that exposes the misjudgment imbedded in the statement: "If you don't like abortion...don't get one."
"If you don't want to own a negro, then don't own one"
America's shameful history of forced slavery (also prohibited by God) serves as a perfect counter example. During our slave days, there were three types of people: those that advocated slavery, those that were in the middle of the road and desired regulations and limitations but not total abolition, and finally, those that opposed slavery with no exceptions and conceded no comprise hidden within so called incremental successes.
Those that advocated total abolition- no exceptions under any circumstance- were considered impractical extremists. They were not just despised by their diametric opponents, they were hated, ridiculed and embarrassing to those of their own party that didn't really agree with slavery but didn't think it was practical to abolish slave holdings, and so instead, chose to regulate the owning of black people; essentially saying: meet these government regulations and then you can own a negro. It is quite a perverse way of thinking and governing but that's a middle of the road moderate for you.
But the abolitionists, oh, the the abolitionists: I love the abolitionists. They were radical extremists fueled with indignation at the stupidity and blatant immorality of those that said "if you don't want to own a negro, then don't one; but don't tell me that I can't own one".
William Wilberforce, who was a British politician, was one such person and one of my greatest inspirations. He was a Christian that wanted to serve God in his public life (a man that the theologically ignorant would charge as a theocrat today.) Once in position to make change, Wilberforce was relentless. Every session for twenty-six years he would introduce anti-slavery/abolishment legislation. Not legislation that cowardly weaved government regulations around the owning of blacks but legislation that would outlaw the horrible act. Then in 1807, the Slave Trade Act was passed ending slave trading in Britain but not slavery itself. Today's politician would be content with that success; after all, there is more than one election to win. But not so with Wilberforce. William Wilberforce continued his extremism by recognizing that the slave trade was only a symptom of the greater sin of slavery. He never saw the conclusion of his labor because he died on July 23,1833, one month before the Slavery Abolition Act was passed and thus banning slavery altogether in his homeland.
Wilberforce, through his commitment to God above all other influences, is a model for how conservatives should handle the abortion issue. It is a human rights issue that should be protected by the U.S. Constitution. The parallels are undeniable.
- Pro-slavery advocates said blacks were less than (white) human
- Pro-abortion advocates say the baby in the womb is less than human
- Moderate slavery advocates said: let's regulate slavery (comply with this government regulation and then you can own a negro)
- Moderate pro-abortion advocates say: let's regulate abortion (obtain parental consent and then you can kill the baby)
- Slave abolitionists said: SCREW YOU! It is wrong and we will make your political life miserable through social tension until you abolish slavery whether you personally like it or not.
- Abortion abolitionists say: SCREW YOU! It is wrong and we will make your political life miserable through social tension until you abolish slavery whether you personally like it or not.
What should be a simple matter has become an extremely contentious one. The issue of abortion really comes down to whether or not a fertilized egg is a human or something else. If a human, then they should be afforded all human rights self evident and protected (not granted) by the constitution. There are some things that the various science disciplines cannot determine about the fertilized egg. But of what they do comprehend all evidence points to humanity. Therefore, a mother entrusted with the care of her growing child should not and must not be granted the rights of an executioner under the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, God understands the nature of the child and their developmental stages in the womb. He has also transmitted that knowledge to us through Psalm 139. In fact, Psalm 139 -irrefutably written long before the technology used to understand fetology was developed- contains such intricate details and inside information (that no man could have known at that time) about how the baby develops. Indeed, the inside knowledge found only in the Judeo-Christian bible is one of the more persuasive proofs of God (and Christianity in particular), especially when medical sciences confirm it in the natural realm.
Some think it is zany to construct one liner responses to complex human life issues. I don't; neither did black slaves, and neither did the gasping Jews who were told that they too were less than human. Like those before me who went against the grain- did the hard stuff others were fearful of doing- and fought for human rights, I, along with many others, will make abortion advocacy as intolerable and uncomfortable as legally possible.
If we, like William Wilberforce, will dedicate twenty-six years to no compromise, relentless, extremist abolition efforts, people will no longer relegate the cheap death of an unborn child to a one line saying. Instead, the small child will be honored, loved, respected, and protected.
PM
No comments:
Post a Comment