A difficult but just cause

In February of 1790, a petition arrived before the First Congress of the United States. It came from the Pennsylvania Society for the Promotion of the Abolition of Slavery. Signed by an elderly Benjamin Franklin, the petition urged Congress to consider how to end the institution of slavery in America.

In its arguments and in its results, the pro-life movement should take instruction and hope. Pro-Lifers could use a little of both at the moment. Those defending the preborn seemed to be caught a bit flat-footed after the Dobbs’ decision overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Moreover, the years afterward have seen more defeat than victory at the polls, in courtrooms, and in the social sphere. The continuing arguments and challenges in a post-Roe and Casey America were important parts of a recent discussion between New York Times columnist Ross Douthat and pro-life advocate Lila Rose.

First, the Society argued for the injustice of slavery. This injustice stemmed from two overarching principles of the good: human liberty and equality. The petition stated that, “equal liberty was originally the Portion, It is still the Birthright of all men.” As a birthright, human beings possessed the right to equality and liberty not because of any special characteristic. It was not because they achieved a particular status or possessed some quality specific to some. Their equal liberty was intrinsic to their existence as humans. Thus, the requirement not only to respect but to protect a person’s equal liberty knew no distinction between members of the human race.

The pro-life movement makes the same argument on behalf of the preborn. Babies in the womb are just as human as those already born—any distinctions being accidental rather than essential to one’s humanity. It is a simple dictate of logic that like things should be treated alike. If justice demands protection of post-born lives, then justice requires the same for preborn. These conclusions, whether on slavery or abortion, merely apply the dictates of natural justice, themselves grounded in the biblical account of humanity’s creation in God’s image.

Second, the Society declared that slavery violated the principles that forged the new country. America not only knew of the eternal principles of justice but had committed herself to them. “That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty being, alike objects of his Care & equally designed for the Enjoyment of Happiness” was an essential element of “the Political Creed of America.” Therefore, to end slavery would not only better realize justice. It would remove an “Inconsistency from the Character of the American People.”

Pro-lifers argue in the same way. Abortion not only is an injustice according to natural and biblical principles; abortion violates those ideals to which America committed Herself at the beginning of the Republic. Our “Political Creed” from the start has been that all men are created equal. We always have affirmed that such equality entails equal protection for life, among other rights. To violate that equality, to infringe those rights for the preborn, does more than place us on the side of wrong; it places us in contradiction with ourselves.

Third, the Society argued that the government possessed the power to do something about the injustice of slavery. Congress possessed a number of particular legislative powers “for ‘promoting the Welfare & Securing the blessings of liberty’ to the ‘People of the United States.’” The debate about slavery would involve important distinctions between national and state power. However, the national government did have an important part to play in limiting and undermining slavery even as much responsibility would rest with state laws as well.

Regarding abortion, advocates for life must get better at making the legal and moral argument into a persuasive legislative one. The argument against Roe and Casey usually denied the Judiciary’s legitimacy in speaking to abortion, saying it should be left to the people to decide. However, upholding popular rule was never the ultimate, even if it was a genuine, goal. Pro-life supporters desire to convince the people and lawmakers to enshrine expansive protections for the preborn into law. As with slavery, much of that case must be made at the state level. Yet the national government retains extensive regulatory powers, powers that the pro-life movement must urge Congress to utilize.

Fourth and finally, the Society did not see immediate success from its efforts. Only three years later, Congress would pass the first Fugitive Slave Act to aid slave-masters in recovering those trying to escape their inhuman bondage. A series of compromises, a new, harsher Fugitive Slave Act, and the infamous Dred Scott decision all seemed to maintain if not outright strengthen the evil of human bondage in this country.

As noted above, pro-life advocates have suffered more defeat than experienced victory since Dobbs. Yet the Society’s 1790 petition one day would win out. Though at horrific cost, America would end the legal institution of slavery. She then would embark on a long struggle to work out the principles of equality and liberty further for the sake of the freedmen and their descendants. Those advocating for the preborn can hope for a similar vindication, although hopefully without the cost of actual war.

To the pro-life movement: Seek wisdom to overcome present challenges; seek hope (and thus persistence) in the justice of the cause. Remember the Society for the Promotion of the Abolition of Slavery, and pray for similar fruit.