The Unborn Bondsman

What the ultrasound did for our country's understanding of pre-natal life in the 21st-century so too did the abolitionist literature of Harriet Beecher Stowe do for our country's understanding of slavery in the 19th-century. Both exposed important realities that were generally unknown to the wider public and transmitted those same realities through clear images to a population that needed to see them. To clarify this point, let us first look at Uncle Tom's Cabin, a work of Stowe that caused President Lincoln to remark upon meeting her: "So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." Then we shall proceed to look at how the ultrasound likewise reveals a hidden existence- an only recently manifested reality- over which our nation is currently warring in the abortion debate.

Harriet Beecher Stowe sought to exhibit slavery in a "living dramatic reality" (Uncle Tom's Cabin, Chapter 45) as she worked on her novel. With machine-like precision she was able to do this by providing a mental picture to the reader of the humanity of enslaved blacks in the ante-bellum South. Writing to an audience that more often than not despised the black man as inferior in race, morality, and ability, Stowe knew them differently- having herself lived in the slave borderlands of Kentucky and Ohio. Her black characters like Uncle Tom, Aunt Chloe, George, Eliza, Cassy and Emmeline are not only admirable, virtuous, and affectionate, they are indeed colored with such authentically human traits, flaws, and genuine feeling that one cannot help but see in them a brother and sister regardless of his own skin color. Indeed, just as Stowe herself argued: it is "just as if one could reason from them [the black slave] to us [the white reader]." (Stowe, ibid, Chapter 16)

One brief glimpse into the narrative catches the sharpness of Stowe's prose while simultaneously providing us a perfect example of this clarity of aim in writing. As the character of Tom sorrows over his plight in being sold off to help pay his master's debt, he hoovers over his two sleeping sons whom he will never see again- for on the morrow he will be picked up by a trader and brought further south to a plantation. "Sobs, heavy, hoarse, and loud, shook the chair," upon which Tom sat by his children's bed "and great tears fell through his fingers on the floor." Here Stowe paints images to equalize the plight of both the black and white person: "Just such tears, sir, as you dropped into the coffin where lay your first-born son; such tears, woman, as you shed when you heard the cries of your dying babe. For, sir, he was a man,- and you are but another man. And, woman, though dressed in silk and jewels, you are but a woman, and, in life's great straits and mighty griefs, ye feel but one sorrow!" ( Stowe, ibid, Chapter 5)

Uncle Tom's Cabin is full of these remonstrances that attempt to "reason from them to us." Literature can be just such an effective tool in unifying members of the human race by enabling the reader to see that the thoughts and feelings of another's heart are not wholly different than his own- regardless of what color skin enshrouds them. Harriet Beecher Stowe did this expertly in her novel when it came to identifying the black man's heart as the same human heart as that of his white counterpart.

Yet, although we in the 21st-century applaud ourselves for having learned this lesson from Stowe's storytelling (i.e. being able to identify that invisible reality within us we all share whether we are black or white: the colorless human soul), we have tragically still not learned to recognize the even more obvious visible reality of life that has been opened to our view by the advent of the ultrasound. For just as Stowe opened her reader's eyes to the likeness of spiritual form in man regardless of skin color, so too does the ultrasound open the viewer's eyes to the likeness of physical form in the human person regardless of age.

The earlier allusion to Stowe's machine-like precision in illustrating humanity through a fictional lens is surpassed- if only in visual clarity- by the advancements of the in-utero photography of the ultrasound machine itself. Indeed, look upon the captured image of an 8-week-old fetus and see if the bones cells of that little one are really any different except in size to your own. Look upon the embryo within the first few months of development and see if the incipient kidney, intestines, and sex organs of that which is growing in the maternal womb be any different in kind to one matured outside the womb. Look upon the videographic images of the unborn sucking his thumb and kicking his legs and see the same case attempting to be made by the young human to the older one looking upon it through a screen as Stowe's fugitive slave George Harris attempted to make to the white man who discovered him in flight: "Look at me, now. Don't I sit before you, every way, just as much a man as you are? Look at my face,-look at my hands,-look at my body, why am I not a man, as much as anybody?" (ibid, Stowe, Chapter 11)

Once Stowe's work was published and disseminated, no longer could ignorance be a wall to hide behind for the ambivalent Northerner who- himself in freedom- cared not for the deplorable existence of the southern slave. Similarly, now that the ultrasound has become widely used, no longer can ignorance be an excuse for the 21st-century non-committal citizen who- himself living free outside his mother's womb- cares not for that encounter of the unborn babe and the abortionist hired to snuff him out. In our day, the likeness of the slave trader cannot be more clearly seen than in the person of this specialized doctor paid to perform the unthinkable; for just as the former sought "a firmer hold and a tighter grip" on his bondsman (c.f. Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, Frederick Douglass), the latter- with equal energy- seeks to retain the power of life, death, and financial gain over his own patient, not yet born. Whereas the one used the primitive method of fist blows and whip lashes to accomplish his end, the other utilizes a more refined method- the forceps- a device used to crush the skull and the tear the limbs off his own unborn bondsman.

Certainly, this comparison of slave trader and abortionist may come off as aggressive and unjust to the person who has long encamped on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate; how unfair it is to compare the two! But would an abortion advocate's criticisms of this comparison be any different than the criticisms Stowe's opponents hurled at her after she published Uncle Tom's Cabin. For did not the defenders of the institution of slavery deride her as one who was missing context, overly sensitive, and dangerously misrepresenting facts? The myriad of defamatory accusations against Stowe, the abolitionist, is no different than the fiery rhetoric that is employed by defenders of the abortion industry against the modern-day abolitionist- the pro-lifer- as they label him an intrusive misogynist, a religious zealot, a thief of reproductive rights. But just as the latter is inspired to hold up in-utero photos to an unbelieving passerby in order to justify his own abhorrence of abortion by showing the reality of life being killed inside the womb, Stowe was compelled to publish an accompanying manuscript entitled A Guide to Uncle Tom's Cabin in order defend the truth of her tale to an unbelieving audience by highlighting the factual basis for her characters.

But it is no wonder that many in Stowe's audience remained incredulous to her telling of the slave's story just as many today remain distrusting of what their sense of sight shows them in an ultrasound image- for even overt, visual images cannot break through that artificial, morally-acceptable barrier of a thing that has been accepted by society and sanctioned by law.

Indeed, was not slavery then protected by the auspices of lawful respectability in Stowe's time in the same way that abortion is now in our own? Does this fact not cause one to wonder: could a thing that is once generally accepted and sanctioned by law ever change so drastically in common opinion as to warrant it becoming a vile and reproachful thing and, as a consequence, ought not the law be justifiably changed under such circumstances? ("At certain periods, nations may feel oppressed by such intolerable evils that the idea of totally altering their political constitution comes into their minds. At other periods the disease is deeper still and the whole social fabric itself is endangered." c.f. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 1, Pt. 2, Ch., 2).

We are constantly told "No"- that things cannot change when it comes to abortion- just as the 19th-century American was told "No"- when it came to slavery. For, as the slavery question was "settled" in the mid-19th century with the Dred Scott supreme court decision, so too was the abortion question "settled" in the 20th with the Roe v. Wade ruling.

Yet, before the pro-choicer hastily claims victory in the debate by citing the seemingly untouchable legal notion of past precedent, let us first listen to the voice of the former-slave Frederick Douglass who spoke on such "settled matters" in 1857 when the Dred Scott ruling came out: "Loud and exultingly have we been told that the slavery question is settled, and settled forever. You remember it was settled thirty-seven years ago, when Missouri was admitted into the Union with a slaveholding constitution...Just fifteen years afterwards, it was settled again by voting down the right of petition, and gagging down free discussion in Congress. Ten years after this it was settled again by the annexation of Texas, and with it the war with Mexico. In 1850 it was again settled. This we called a final settlement...Four years after this settlement, the whole question was once more settled, and settled by a settlement which unsettled all the former settlements" (ibid., Frederick Douglass).

If we might aptly borrow the words of Sojourner Truth: "Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter" ("Ain't I a Woman" speech at the Ohio Women's Rights Convention). Why so many settlements if a thing is already settled! Something must have been out of kilter if it was being constantly brought up for a court to justify it. The only reason to explain the need for all the settlements was if consciences were already uneasy with the moral legitimacy of the thing to begin with.

Likewise, let us look at the course the issue of abortion has taken in order to be "settled" in our own court system today: In 1973, Roe v. Wade settled it by making it a constitutional right- almost 200 years after our nation's founding. Three years later Planned Parenthood v. Danforth further settled it by blocking a law that required spousal consent. In another three years Colautti v. Franklin settled it once again by no longer even making it a requirement for a physician to save the life of a viable fetus. However, a year later Harris v. McRae prohibited federal funds for this, as yet, protected constitutional right of abortion and in 1981, L. v. Matheson even went a step further and required parental notification if a minor were to have one. But in 1986, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists again settled the question by striking down a law that required information on fetal development and alternatives to abortion to be with shared with the prospective patient. Yet, this was only to be followed in three years when Webster v. Reproductive Health Services made it a requirement for physicians to, at least, test for the viability of the little one after 20 weeks and blocked state funding for the procedure of abortion. But in 1992, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey upheld the Roe ruling with the hopes of definitively settling the question in favor of protecting abortion in the country. In 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart continued along these lines and even struck down a ban on the dilation and extraction abortion procedure; however, this was followed seven years later by Gonzales v. Carhart upholding a federal ban on the very same procedure. And now, we have seen the Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health Organization judgement shock the country by overturning the original Roe and Casey judgements by saying abortion is not a constitutional right and cannot be federally protected; it has now been determined to be a state's decision whether each one wants to allow for abortion within their own territory or not. On June 24, 2022- within the same week as the federal celebration of Juneteenth marking the emancipation of slaves within the state of Texas- this Dobbs decision came out and the abortion question "was once more settled, and settled by a settlement which unsettled all the former settlements."

Is it not obvious we are as a nation in the exact same position with regards to abortion as it was in the mid-19th-century with regard to slavery? When slavery became outlawed above the Mason-Dixon line and protected below it, the country became divided legally and morally. President Lincoln knew that the nation could not survive such a divide: "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all states, old as well as new, North as well as South" ("A House Divided" speech at the Illinois Republican National Convention). Abraham Lincoln was right. The former group won and he ended up writing the Emancipation Proclamation.

It is to be doubted that if the nation could not stand divided on slavery then it can somehow now stand divided on abortion. Can the country reasonably believe it likely to peacefully coexist if some states think abortion is the killing of an innocent human being and other states think it is a permissible choice to be protected by law? Would it not be exactly as if some states thought slavery was a degrading, cruel, and dehumanizing treatment of other human beings and other states thought it a necessary, even praiseworthy component to our society that ought to be protected by law?

The Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973- prior to the Dobbs decision overturning it- acted as a relief valve acts in a pressurized tank. The relief valve allows excess pressure to be diverted from filling the tank and enables it to exit out into the open air, thereby protecting the integrity and strength of the tank by reducing internal pressure. As long as that valve functions properly the tank cannot be damaged by outside pressure being introduced it.

Likewise, by being considered a constitutional right protected by our highest court, the pressure of differing opinion over the abortion question (expressing itself through moral supplication and sound logic on one side and woefully misdirected charity and mere utilitarianism on the other) was quickly diffused when it was reasoned that the past precedent of the courts had already settled the question in favor of abortion; thus far, the valve worked smoothly enough. It was tuned up to work smoother still with the Casey decision in 1992. But now, 30 years later, the Dobbs decision has busted the valve! No longer is abortion a thing to be accepted by the mere fact that it is established law, now it is to be argued over rationally as either a social ill or a justifiable act. It is to be debated with mind and heart; justified or brought down by critical reasoning and the inner movements of human sympathy. The strain in the tank will continue to build under such opposing, contradictory pressure; it will now only be able to find its release in blowing the sides and roof off the tank! It did this once before when the numerous battlefields of the Civil War were flooded out with the blood of those who argued over slavery. We can only hope the abortion question does not settle itself that way again.

Harriet Beecher Stowe called out the inconsistency of our country in claiming as its founding document, the Declaration of Independence- a document claiming "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"- even while this same nation allowed for the enslavement of the African race. For at the end of the day, the language of the Declaration was, for the abolitionist, an idea to be worked out logically and implemented in our laws; but, for the slavery advocate, this notion of God-given rights was merely "one of Jefferson's pieces of French sentiment and humbug." Therefore, it was understandable for one slave owner in the novel to say: "It's perfectly ridiculous to have that going the rounds among us, to this day." (Stowe, ibid, Chapter 23)

Has the abortion advocate really moved beyond this way of thinking? Does he not still think it a bit ridiculous to have all that Jefferson sentiment and humbug of the unalienable right to life going the rounds among us? Does he not "warp and bend language and ethics to a degree that [astonishes] the world" (Stowe, ibid, Chapter 19) by attempting to blur the line that excludes abortion from any reasonable understanding of the right to life? Does he not outright reject the rights enunciated in the Declaration when they are found to be inconsistent with and irreconcilable to his own idea of the apparently more perennial reproductive "rights" of the 1970s.

Perhaps it would be more effective for him to be more subtle in his dismissal of the nation's founding document by quoting from it like Vice President Harris recently did on the 50th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling: "It is a promise of freedom and liberty- not for some, but for all. A promise we made in the Declaration of Independence that we are each endowed with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (Remarks of Vice President Kamala Harris in Tallahassee, Florida)

Conspicuously- for the observing listener- life has now been dropped as one of our endowed rights and the brazenness of the Vice President's speech is to only to be shuddered at. But, to those others who have eyes to see but cannot see and ears to hear but cannot hear (c.f. Ez 12:2, Is 6:9, Mk 4:12), this pruning of the text is met with the approval of applause. Lamentedly, it is applauded so loudly by those who already live life outside the womb that the cry for life of the yet born slave is drowned out. Not even a novel of Stowe, an ultrasound image, the reasoning of the intellect nor a plea from the heart has yet been able to pierce through the racket of that applause.