Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Fall 2022 PDF
    • SUMMER 2022 ARTICLES
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
    • LIBERTY TO DO WHAT? Hadley Arkes and Rusty Reno join George McKenna June 1, 2022 in New York
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2022
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2022
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 Dinner Ticket
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 STUDENT or PREGNANCY CENTER STAFF Ticket
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2022
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

A Pastor's Reflections

0 Comment

We Want What We Want

27 Jun 2018
W. Ross Blackburn
slavery
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One evening in 1787 a young English M.P. pored over papers by candlelight in his home beside the Houses of Parliament. Wilberforce had been asked to propose the Abolition of the Slave Trade although almost all Englishmen thought the Trade necessary, if nasty, and that economic ruin would follow if it stopped.  Only a very few thought the Slave Trade wrong, evil.

—John Pollack, biographer of William Wilberforce.

 

Sometimes we see ourselves more clearly in others. That was King David’s experience after his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. If you remember the Old Testament story (2 Samuel 11-12), David committed adultery with Bathsheba, got her pregnant, and had her husband killed to cover the whole thing over, all the while being utterly oblivious to the character and magnitude of his sin. What awakened him was not a sermon on the evil of adultery and murder, but a simple story of oppression: a rich man who had everything, but who nevertheless took the only lamb of a poor neighbor.  David’s sense of justice remained intact, at least in part, for what he was blind to in his own life became crystal clear as he heard the story of another’s injustice; he then understood when told by the prophet “you are the man!”

Which brings me to the quote above concerning William Wilberforce. If one were to take a poll in London or New York today, public support for slavery would be practically non-existent. Despite much moral confusion and contention in the modern West, we at least recognize that slavery is wrong (even if we don’t really like the word “evil”). Yet it was not always so, for the institution of slavery deeply divided England, and in America it led to war. How do we account for the difference between now and then?

Might the present moral clarity have something do to with the fact that western society does not profit from slavery as it once did?

Many have drawn the parallel between the abolition of the slave trade then and the fight to end abortion now. We live in a culture with a vested economic and social interest in abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court itself has been surprisingly candid about this point. As the Court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992):

The Roe rule’s limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed.

In other words, if the Supreme Court were to allow states more power in determining abortion law, it would have a negative economic and social impact upon those whose sexual lives depend on access to abortion, particularly women. Under the veneer of legal reasoning lies social engineering.

We want what we want. According to the Supreme Court, we want to preserve our sexual license and our economic opportunity, and are willing to sacrifice young lives to do so. The Court was certainly correct that restricting abortion would cause significant disturbance in the way we “organize our intimate relationships.” Which is precisely why our situation is similar to Wilberforce’s 200 years ago. To return to Pollack’s words about slavery, is not the Court arguing that abortion is necessary, if nasty, and that economic (and social) ruin would follow if it is stopped?

Slavery did not become an institution in England overnight. It was built over time, until it became what many deemed a necessity. Yes, the slave trade’s eventual abolition did have economic consequences, undoubtedly disruptive for some. But English society did not fall apart, for in the end it did not depend upon the injustice that was slavery for its survival. And neither did American society.

It is not legal reasoning that props up the nation’s unrestricted abortion license. Our desires do. If it were simply a matter of legal reasoning, abortion law would look far different than it does today. The battle is deeper, and will only be won by those who understand abortion on demand as evil—for mothers and fathers and families, for communities, society, and, in the end, for mankind.

Back To Main Feature

 

 

 

119 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.
About the Author
W. Ross Blackburn

Dr. Ross Blackburn has been ordained for 20 years and has served as Rector for Christ the King for the past 10. He earned a Master of Divinity at Trinity School for Ministry, and a PhD in biblical studies at the University of Saint Andrews, Scotland. He and his wife Lauren have been married for 23 years and have five children.
As a member of Anglicans for Life's Board of Directors, Dr. Blackburn is a regular contributor to AFL's Lectionary Life App series, and writes for the Human Life Review as well as  Christian Publications.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

Hit and run violence after Roe: Can't we talk about the morality of abortion?

28 Jan 2023

Abortion activist attempts to expose crisis pregnancy centers—and fails

17 Jan 2023

An Abortion Clinic in Your Neighborhood

09 Jan 2023

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS
  • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.