Parallels

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010608.cfm

"Democrats Purport to Seek 'Compromise' on Abortion"

That's not compromise; you can't comprimise your principles if you don't have any.

Just as in the distant past some called for the gradual abolition of the slave trade (other terms used were "regulation" or "moderation"), so today some are seeking "common ground" on the issue of abortion.

The following quote is from the (altogether amazing) book Amazing Grace by Eric Metaxas and is about William Wilberforce, the member of British parliament a couple of hundred years ago who was the key player in ending the British slave trade, slavery, and many more social ills, and who was also the man who basically (re)created the idea of a social conscience:

"Wilberforce saw much of what the rest of the world could not, including the grotesque injustice of one man treating another as property. He seems to rise up out of nowhere and with the voice of unborn millions--with your voice and mine--shriek to his contemporaries that they are sleepwalking through hell, that they must wake up and must see what he saw and know what he knew--and what you and I know today--that the widespread and institutionalized and unthinkably cruel mistreatment of millions of human beings is evil and must be stopped as soon as conceivably possible--no matter the cost."

Sound familiar? The only part I disagree with is what I put in italics because we actually don't all see what he saw. As has happened many times in history--and despite general agreement that all men are created equal--we keep redefining 'man' such that there are always those inferior beings who are property, and thus treating them as such is not evil and we are told to only think of the high cost to personal freedom if we do anything about it.

While I'm talking of abolition and slavery, do also note how the British abolition movement was an almost exclusively Christian movement at the time. Politically active, often rich, and (what we would now call) fundamentalist Methodists (and don't forget the Quakers) were at the center of the movement when no one else was. Good examples of those who were generally opposed to abolition were those with financial interests in the Trade (nowadays that would be single mothers who cannot afford a child as well as those who profit from leaving abortion as is), those who did not want to take unpopular actions that would curtail the freedoms of their constituents (i.e. your average American politician), those who take advantage of other people and often believe that certain people (usually of color) are inferior and should be exterminated (Planned Parenthood), and finally, the guiltiest party, the Church of England, which staunchly retained "the outward trappings and forms of religion--which were all well and good and would help keep the lower classes better behaved--but... [denied] religion any real power" (which would be your average mainline Protestant "church" today).

Now, I wonder if there is any movement in response to a social ill that is almost exclusively the cause of "fundamentalist" Christians....