Even earlier than this, on July 1, 1854, Lincoln wrote this small fragment to address some of the popular arguments but forward by pro-slavery choice advocates who argued that whites should have the right to enslave blacks based on color, intellect, or interest:
Read that again. The importance of Lincoln’s logic should not be overlooked. Lincoln realized that if you try to establish human rights or personhood by appealing to a set of arbitrary degreed properties which carry no moral weight or significance, properties such as color and intellect which none of us share equally, then you end up undermining human rights for everyone.“You say A is white and B is black. It is color, then: the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be a slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly?—You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore, have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be a slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.”
What pro-slavery choice advocates did in the past, pro-abortion choice advocates do today. Only instead of arguing that blacks are non-persons based on color and intellect and can therefore be enslaved, they argue the unborn are non-persons based on size, development, and dependency, and can therefore be killed.
But logic is timeless, and the reasoning of pro-abortion choice advocates today is just as flawed as that of the pro-slavery choice advocates then. If Lincoln were alive today and were to address the current abortion debate, he might say something like this:
And there you have it. Scott Klusendorf states, “In the past, we used to discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender (and still do at times), but now, with elective abortion, we discriminate on the basis of size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency. We’ve simply swapped one form of bigotry for another” (The Case for Life, 66).“You say A is big and B is small. It is size, then: the larger having the right to kill the smaller? Take care. By this rule, you are to be a victim to the first man you meet, with a larger body than your own. You do not mean size exactly?—You mean human persons are developmentally the superiors of the unborn, and therefore, have the right to kill them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be a victim to the first man you meet, with a development superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to kill the unborn. Very well. And if another can make it his interest, he has the right to kill you.”
In the past pro-slavery choice advocates adopted an elitist view and sought to create a sub-class of human beings who didn’t qualify as human persons. Today pro-abortion choice advocates do the same. They argue that larger, more developed, and independent human beings can kill smaller, less developed, dependent human beings.
Contrast this with the pro-life movement which is inclusive and wide-open to all. Pro-lifers argue that all human beings, including the unborn, are in fact human persons simply in light of being what they are: human beings who possess a human nature. Please join with us in committing to protect the smallest, most defenseless, most vulnerable members of the human community: the unborn.