By Philip Drucker
Mark, Matthew & Abraham Lincoln
When Abraham Lincoln stated a house divided against itself cannot stand he was not advocating for the end of slavery. No don’t get me (or Honest Abe) wrong. Lincoln was a vocal advocate for the end of slavery however, he did not campaign on an abolitionist platform. He was the candidate of the status quo with the following caveat.
His message was to preserve the Union at all costs and if that meant freeing some of the slaves he would do that. If freeing all the slaves was a possibility, and his preference, he would do that but he also warned if freeing none of the slaves was necessary to keep the United States united and intact, he would, at least for the time being, do that.
Lincoln also knew that one day, America would have to decide and for all states to become free or to embrace and practice slavery, that slavery would become the law of the land, or vanish from our shores completely, a forgotten relic of our past. And it is here where the line between the house divided was drawn and eventually, could not stand.
And so, after seven states seceded (so much for the Union), and war declared with the first attack on the federal Fort Sumter in North Carolina, the die was cast, a bloody conflict ensued at the conclusion of which and after Lincoln issued the most famous of all executive actions, the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all of the previously enslaved African Americans in the South, we were for better or worse, a house undivided until of course the next state splitting division occurred.
Today, we rightly remember the US Civil War as a conflict in which one side fought for the right to free those who were enslaved. The other for the right to continue enslaving those who would otherwise be free. IMHO, this is the lesson we should never forget.
That one side believed their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness depended entirely on the denial of the same rights of an entire class of people, effectively denying them the right to self-determination as a matter of law. And yes, this is reprehensible. It was an abomination then, and the same attitudes, justifications and similar actions taken today are still abominable and worthy of our condemnation.
Some of you are probably thinking right about now I’m going to launch into a diatribe about Confederate statues and all things racist in general. I could, but not today. Today I want to discuss a matter that is dividing our nation in a way that in the long run will prove to fall into the “house divided” category and must eventually be resolved one way or the other. I speak of the rights of women to choose for themselves without government interference of any sort, the right if and when to have an abortion.
100 years in the making, when the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade that a woman’s right to privacy in matters related to the family included the right to have or not to have an abortion we once again found ourselves a nation truly divided and in a situation very similar to that in 1860. I am not referring to matters involving race, States’ rights, secession, and civil war, but I am exposing a broader issue and one that has the ability to break the nation in two.
For in abortion, we find ourselves dealing with an issue where one faction’s health and well-being, spiritually if not physically, depends on depriving an identifiable group of individuals, who by nature of their I would say unique ability, but some now say irreconcilable differences, or more succinctly, women, the right to decide for themselves in a matter directly related to their health and well-being, and on an even more basic level, their I say their God given right to choose.
Know this, I am no fan of abortion. When in doubt, I choose life. But that is my whole point I choose life over death, but I as I would defend your right to free speech and/or any number of other natural rights, I would also defend, and yes, I do, a woman’s inherent, inalienable and undeniable right to make decisions without interference from those who would categorically deny her the right to do so. Without fear of damnation, retribution and penalty, legal or otherwise, of any kind.
Further, and certainly a big part of the problem this time around is the mistaken religion as authority of the “pro-life” holier than thou crowd. Firstly, let me state for my money I don’t even see a true, legitimate pro-life movement. I do recognize a pro-birth movement mistakenly based upon a misreading of scripture when I see one. But let me ask you, today’s modern equivalent of a slave owner, where does it say suffer the children only to let them suffer?
Is this your idea of God’s righteous retribution for original sin? The mere fact of being born leading to a life of fear, poverty, oppression and depression? All in the interest in protecting an entity not of your own flesh or blood, for which you claim no spiritual or earthly responsibility for after birth? Really? If this isn’t a situation where someone like me might reasonably inquire of you, “Who the hell do you think you are?” I know of no other condition or circumstances worthier of my cynicism, sarcasm and yes, ultimate condemnation. Or in other words, “How dare you?”
Is there a case that could be made for fostering a country where “Thou shall not abort” be the objective and desire of the masses? Of course. But it must be made by ways of creating options for an expectant mother, including education and yes, assistance, for the life and welfare of both the mother and the child. Anything less is, well, the only word that comes to mind is an abomination, like slavery, like a house divided that cannot stand.
Stop the righteous indignation about celestial matters you do not understand. Stop the rhetoric, the hatred and yes, the violence. And for the sake of all, please, I beg you, stop playing God. Just stop.
Like My Blog? Buy My Book?
Comments