It is routinely remarked by both intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals that “those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.”  It is definitely true that one of the history profession’s greatest tasks is to explain to the current generation how people in the past dealt with their problems, the good and the bad.  We hope that by doing so we might (re)learn some lesson or at least will avoid the same pitfalls our ancestors discovered the hard way.   One area in which a number of strong comparisons may be made might surprise us.  A number of historical similarities present themselves between the arguments antebellum slaveholders used to support slavery and those used to support the modern abortion rights movement.

 At its most basic level, African chattel slavery involved one section of the population declaring other portions of that same population non-persons in order to protect the dominant side’s perceived rights and to reap economic gain, public benefit, and convenience.  In doing so, the slaveholders claimed as a civil right the ability to perpetrate a moral wrong on someone who was not in a position to complain.  This, of course, is nothing more or less than the essence of the “Pro Choice” movement.  Arguments in favor of abortion and slavery are nearly identical, revolving around several similar premises: 

1.      Each person’s “right” to choose to do what he or she would with a life that had been arbitrarily defined as property—slaves or in utero children.

2.      The economic and quality of life benefits both systems offered the rest of the population—massive revenues brought in by slave agriculture or possible health care advances through stem cell research; protection against losing a huge investment in slaves or having to raise and inconvenient baby in less than ideal—or even frankly bad—circumstances.

3.      The tiny minority of cases from both groups that seem on the face of it somewhat morally acceptable—slaves who apparently consented to slavery and pregnancies that threaten the mother’s life which can only be relieved by abortion (which make up less than 5% of the abortions currently performed in America).

4.      An allegedly altruistic case made from the perspective of the victims, arguing that by granting them their rights, we are inevitably causing more harm than good—To keep uneducated slaves in slavery is more human than freeing them to face a harsh world, while to abort unwanted babies to prevent them from facing possible emotional and physical duress in a poor home situation is more humane than allowing them a chance at life.

 Southerners employed, and abortionists still do, sham science to justify both movements, even as honest science makes the reality of their victim’s humanity all the more clear.  Pro-slavery advocates at the time had an even easier time seeing the slaves humanity than modern Americans do in-utero children; they could look black men and women in the eye, talk to them, and get to know them.  Still, they managed to turn to “science” to support their claims.  They even trotted out the discovery of the gorilla as “proof” African-Americans were scientifically sub-human.  Today, while the evidence mounts through better ultrasound technology that children should be considered human months before birth (indeed, looking at DNA evidence, at conception), the modern abortion movement continues to insist that life in bestowed mystically by a child passing through the few inches of the birth canal.  Is the child physiologically different than five minutes before, are such differences measurable and on the scale to suddenly bestow personhood?  Of course not, but the modern abortion movement maintains that this is the “scientific” beginning of life.  Why then?  Not because of evidence, but because, like the pro-slavery use of the gorilla, it is convenient to their position.

So, it also becomes clear that the hardcore advocates in both groups have made emotional, volitional choices to cling to their beliefs in the face of this mounting evidence.  Their decisions are not made because of the evidence, but rather in spite of it.  In the case of slavery, the humanity of black men and women was completely manifest, but slaveholders chose to deny reality anyway.  It is the same with modern abortionists.  All of the evidence clearly points to a beginning point for life prior to birth, and yet many plainly refuse to acknowledge it.  In both cases, the alleged benefits of the institution cause an emotional reaction that result in a decision in spite of the available evidence.  Such a decision requires effort and a willful disregard of the facts.    

Finally, both movements try to confuse the issue by focusing on the rights and well-being of a single party in what is in reality a complex situation that involves more than one group.  With slavery, it was the rights and comfort (particularly economic) of the slave holder that trumped all others.  The rights of African Americans—as individuals, as mothers, as fathers, as families—could not be considered since doing so would inevitably undermine and destroy the institution of slavery.  In the case of abortion, the rights and comfort of the mother necessarily trump all others.  The child’s rights are not allowed to enter into the equation because doing so could potentially lead to something other than abortion on demand. 

There is only one sure way for both pro-slavery and pro-abortion theorists to prevent the victims’ rights from coming to play:  Deny the humanity of the afflicted party.  If either the slave or the child is human, and therefore due rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the situation becomes a much more difficult one.  Admitting the potential rights of the victims also results in simple, straight forward judgments against both slavery and abortion.  Slavery cannot be “good” if it deprives another person of his or her rights.  Abortions for convenience cannot be “good” if they are in fact the murder of an innocent child.  Therefore, for the erstwhile defenders of both groups, defining a group of persons out of existence becomes an absolute necessity.  This, of course, brings our comparison full circle. 

This isn’t, of course, to imply that there is a 100% correspondence between the two.  For instance, while slavery stole lives a day at a time, abortion snatches away an entire life when it is most innocent and helpless.  (At least Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey could revolt.)  Slavery caused a Civil War that resulted in 620,000 American deaths, while the violence resulting from abortion (barring that committed upon unborn children) has thus far been negligible.  Slavery dealt with fully functioning, mature, thinking individuals, while abortion involves actions against individuals incapable of communication or complex thought.  Still, the similarities are significant.  Perhaps by dwelling on them, Americans will be able to see both all the more clearly.