A long time ago, in a Unitarian Universalist congregation, I heard a sermon about one of Unitarianism's heroes, the Rev. Theodore Parker. Rev. Parker was an active abolitionist in the mid-nineteenth century, and was fiercely opposed to the Fugitive Slave Act. He was know to have tracked bounty hunters to their local accomodations, and, accompanied by large crowds of abolitionist sympathizers, knock on their doors, and say that their safety in that location could not be assured. In affect, the bounty hunters were run out of town. Rev. Parker was also a financial supporter of John Brown, who led the attack on Harper's Ferry, which resulted in the loss of innocent life (and several guilty ones as well).
Now, the abolitionists considered slavery to be a violation of human rights, even though that right was not recognized by our country at the time, at least not by the decisions of our Congress, which passed the Fugitive Slave Act, and our Supreme Court with its Dredd Scott decision.
Now, lets go to the present time. A large number of people believe that abortion is also a violation of human rights in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has said that it recognizes such a right. If a modern-day pro-lifer were to undertake actions similar to the Rev. Parker's would the UUA be sympathetic to their plight? No, they would be a religious extremist. What's the difference, I wonder. Now, don't get me wrong here. I do not endorse violence against abortionists or the property in which they practice their trade. But let's look at the inconsistencies here. A nineteenth-century Unitarian preacher, acting for human rights, threatened bounty hunters looking for slaves. Today, if anyone were to take similar action, they would be branded as a religious extremist.
Whatever direction the American Unitarian Association's moral compass pointed to on the issue of slavery in the nineteenth century, it most certainly points in the opposite direction on the issue of abortion today.
I agree that support for abortion "rights" shows inconsistency when we consider past positions on such issues as women's rights and slavery. Even if we can't agree on when the child becomes a human being - I hold to the from the moment of conception opinion - we should err on the side of caution and fight for protecting the unborn. By the way, I prefer the name pro-life - "anti-abortion" is a negative name favored by the pro-choice folks as a way to connotatively darken our image, and I don't like other people labeling me.
Posted by: Lee Strong at November 15, 2003 05:20 AMI believe life begins at conception-it's a
beautiful union of a man and a woman and God's
breathe of life that begins responsibility for
care of that newly created, precious life.
There is no advocate for the unborn. They are
an endangered species, unprotected by the laws
and sympathies - totally unrecognized as living,
though the powers of creation have been released.
It is the moral and ethical responsibility of
freedom to protect the defenseless of humanity.