The Slavery of the Unborn: Why Abortion Reduction Is Not Pro-Life

Since the heat of last year's Presidential election, I have been tracking the push for abortion reduction. The idea is to compromise on the divisive issue of abortion. To proponents the argument goes that eliminating abortion is not practice rather we should focus on the reasons for abortion such as economic status, poverty, rape, etc. On the other hand, abortion is the taking of life. Therefore, abortion reductionist propose that the answer to the issue of abortion is not eliminate or increase abortions, but to reduce it.

I have made it clear that this is no compromise or an answer in any way. Murder is murder, regardless of the number. It is simply appalling that one would call themselves pro-life and yet support any legislation or philosophy that allows abortion. It should also be stated that many proponents voted for President Obama last year and has already made executive decisions that will lead to the increase of blood shed, not a decrease as we were all promised.

An article has been written that deals with this issue that is a must to read by Frank Beckwith. He makes some great points on how abortion reduction is no solution at all.

I and other pro-life activists have worked tirelessly over the years to reduce the number of abortions, but a numerical reduction is not our only goal. The prolife position is that all members of the human community, including the unborn, have inestimable and equal worth and dignity and thus are entitled to the fundamental protection of the laws. Reducing the number of these discretionary acts of killing simply by trying to pacify and/or accommodate the needs of those who want to procure or encourage abortions only reinforces the idea that the unborn are subhuman creatures whose value depends exclusively on someone else’s wanting them or deciding that they are worthy of being permitted to live."

He is exactly right. By keeping abortion legal, the unborn remain "subhuman creatures" who are not given the right to live simply because someone else doesn't want them around. By definition, that is murder. He goes on to add:

Consider this illustration. Imagine if someone told you in 19th century America that he was not interested in giving slaves full citizenship, but merely reducing the number of people brought to this country to be slaves. But suppose another person told you that he too wanted to reduce the number of slaves, but proposed to do it by granting them the full citizenship to which they are entitled as a matter of natural justice. Which of the two is really “against slavery” in a full-orbed principled sense? The first wants to reduce the number of slaves, but only while retaining a regime of law that treats an entire class of human beings as subhuman property. The second believes that the juridical infrastructure should reflect the moral truth about enslaved people, namely, that they are in fact human beings made in the image of their Maker who by being held in bondage are denied their fundamental rights.

Just as calling for the reduction of the slave population is not the same as believing that slaves are full members of the moral community and are entitled to protection by the state, calling for a reduction in the number of abortions is not the same as calling for the state to reflect in its laws and policies the true inclusiveness of the human family, that it consists of all those who share the same nature regardless of size, level of development, environment or dependency.

This begs the question, is abortion the next civil rights issue? Aren't the unborn having to fight for their right to exist freely? Abortion is as appalling as slavery. And like our ancestors, many in America ignore the atrocities going on around us. We declare ourselves to be pro-life and yet we'll support policies and politicians who clearly are against the unborn. Shame on us. Let freedom ring. Let us celebrate life once again.