CLC Blog

The question of whether to support legislation limiting abortion to before a certain moment in gestational development is one that is hotly contested within the Canadian pro-life movement. The arguments for and against supporting gestational limits have been heard many times and the lines are clearly drawn in the sand. Is it morally permissible to support gestational limits? Is it strategically prudent to do so?

While this debate goes on, I hope that by now we all have come to realize that our activism and legislative efforts do not exist in a historical vacuum. These conversations surrounding the morality and efficacy of forms of legal incrementalism or gradualism were had by many figures in the past whom we look to for inspiration in our pro-life advocacy today.

Many of you are at least vaguely aware of William Wilberforce, the heroic abolitionist of slavery. In Britain during the late eighteenth century, abortion was not the foremost injustice of the day—slavery was. Wilberforce championed the cause of justice for the slaves for decades in British Parliament and by God’s grace was able to see the fruits of his labour; on his deathbed in 1833, he received news that the bill to free all slaves in the British Colonies had passed its second reading.

The reason I draw your attention to Wilberforce is because he is often heralded by various pro-life groups as someone who was willing to make legal compromises and do what he could to mitigate the evils of slavery whenever possible, while continually fighting for the end goal of abolishing slavery throughout. Some take this a step further and seek to justify a legislative strategy of gestational restrictions on abortion (like a heartbeat bill) by equating it to the strategy employed by Wilberforce in his fight against slavery. Learning from the past is an excellent way to determine how we ought to act in the present, so let’s dive into the strategy and path that Wilberforce walked to fight slavery and see what we can glean.

Born into the British aristocracy, Wilberforce had a semi-charmed upbringing, which included receiving large inheritances from his uncle and grandfather, partying in college, and generally living a hedonistic lifestyle. In college, he frequently watched parliamentary debates, and became convinced to run for office by his friend and future Prime Minister, William Pitt. Wilberforce earned the necessary votes with a little bit of bribery and became a Member of Parliament for “Kingston upon Hull” in 1780 at the age of 21.

Early on in his political career, Wilberforce underwent a conversion to Christianity. He became convinced by those around him that God had placed him in his position for such a time as this, and he was quickly recruited by a group of anti-slavery advocates to champion their legislative efforts in British Parliament. This group of abolitionists called themselves “The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade” and they sought to do just that. The “abolitionists of slavery,” as they were known, sought to legally eliminate British involvement in the slave trade, not legally end slavery. Slavery in Britain itself had already been somewhat “taken down” after the decision of Somerset v Stewart in 1772. While they viewed slavery as an institution rife with injustice, they determined, not without much debate, that the best way to eventually eradicate slavery in its entirety would be to abolish the slave trade. Wilberforce wrote further about their strategy in his 1823 book titled, An Appeal to the Religion, Justice, and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire: In Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies.

He writes:

“It is the more necessary to state that the views of the abolitionists [of the slave trade] were always directed towards the extinction of slavery, after preparing the black population for the enjoyment of it. . . Our opponents imputed to us that our real intention was, immediately, to emancipate the slave population of the Colonies: they were aware that there were many who felt themselves bound by the most urgent principles of justice and humanity at once to put an end to a system of crimes, which was so falsely called a trade in Negroes, who yet would oppose all endeavours to emancipate the slaves without those previous and preparatory measures that would be requisite for enabling them to render the acquisition of liberty either safe for their owners or beneficial to themselves. We, in consequence, declared, that although we certainly did look forward ultimately to the emancipation of the slaves, yet that the object we were then pursuing was only the abolition of the Slave Trade, of which it was one grand recommendation, that by stopping the further influx of uncivilized Africans, and by rendering the planters sensible that they must in future depend on the native increase for keeping up their slave population, it would tend powerfully to prepare the way for the great and happy change of slave into free labourers.” (35-36)

Wilberforce was indeed morally opposed to all slavery, but he and his group of abolitionists were not planning to legally abolish it. They knew that chattel slavery, or treating slaves like animals, and the evils that slave owners were committing in the British Colonies needed to stop; and they thought that slave owners might be forced to treat slaves more and more as free labourers should the supply of slaves from Africa stop. Wilberforce was not an advocate for the immediate abolition of slavery. He believed that slaves weren’t ready for freedom, and that they needed to first “become qualified for the enjoyment of liberty” (35, An Appeal). Wilberforce had previously even argued that the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act would result in the native slave population increasing, and he pitched that as a benefit (216, A Letter).

While many other abolitionists remained focused on reforming the culture with various prophetic projects and “grassroots” efforts, Wilberforce began his political efforts. Though he only targeted the legality of the slave trade and not all slavery, his pursuit of this goal could hardly be characterized as incrementalism. He put forward motions and bills for the complete and immediate abolition of the slave trade, year after year—for 18 years. His predominant opponents were men like Henry Dundas, who agreed with Wilberforce on principle, but argued that the slave trade could and should only be abolished gradually. Before the slave trade was abolished, Wilberforce wrote a book titled, A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in which he called the gradual abolitionists of his day the "...only real stay of that system of wickedness and cruelty that we wish to abolish" (294-295, A Letter). Wilberforce had no desire to act incrementally when it came to the abolition of the slave trade, and he clearly condemned those who did. Finally, in 1807, Wilberforce’s strivings would bear fruit. When the vote carried in British Parliament to pass the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, Wilberforce wept with his head in his hands while he received tumultuous applause in recognition of his tireless efforts and his leadership.

Wilberforce then took some time away from advocating for slaves, seemingly content with the legislation he had passed. He did boost a motion to render the abolition of the slave trade more effective in 1816, but he introduced no new legislation against slavery itself for the rest of his parliamentary career. He had made it clear when the slave trade was abolished (with massive support) that immediate emancipation for slaves was not his goal. This explains why he did not push for emancipation immediately afterwards. He even said to his close friend Henry Thornton after the abolition of the slave trade, “What shall we abolish next?” Had Wilberforce been set on starting to attack the legality of slavery next, that question would have been deeply sarcastic rather than gleeful as it has been described.

Wilberforce’s strategy rested on the hope that abolishing the slave trade would force slave owners to treat the slaves with more dignity and even evangelize them, preparing them for an eventual life of liberty. It was his belief that immediate emancipation would be detrimental to the slaves and society at large and that if he had tried to immediately abolish slavery, there would rise up a fierce opposition because of the fears of civil unrest should thousands of slaves suddenly be set free.

As the years passed after his success in 1807, Wilberforce realized that they had not accomplished the victory he thought they had. The slaves were not being prepared for a life of liberty and the abuses of slavery continued. Wilberforce became increasingly active in the fight against slavery again towards the end of his life.

In 1823, Wilberforce wrote An Appeal to the Religion, Justice, and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire: In Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies. Therein, Wilberforce admits that his strategy of abolishing the slave trade first, to effectively end the injustices of chattel slavery and bring about gradual emancipation, was flawed. The injustices and degradation that the slaves faced continued to happen despite it; thus, it had become apparent that it was necessary to legally do away with slavery itself.

Wilberforce writes:

“…the ground of our persuasion was, that the absolute prohibition of all future importation of slaves into the colonies, provided means were adopted for insuring its permanent execution, would exercise a sort of moral compulsion over the minds of the planters, and even of their managers and overseers, and induce them, for the necessary end of maintaining the black population, to adopt effectual measures for reforming the principal abuses of the system: but it is manifest, that such compulsion could not arise from a law which they had power to elude at pleasure. I am willing, however, for my own part, to admit that this foundation-stone of our hopes may have rested on sandy ground: for what has since passed has proved to me how little prudence and foresight can effect in opposition to the stubborn prejudices, and strong passions, and inveterate habits that prevail in our West Indian assemblies.” (36-37, emphasis added)

He writes further about other gradual, indirect measures to end slavery:

“Other mitigations of slavery have as long been recommended to the assemblies, even by their own most respected advocates in this country; but not one has been effectually adopted. The laws which the various legislatures have passed for such purposes, still precisely answer the description given by Mr. Burke in his letter to Mr. Secretary Dundas, in 1792, of such colonial statutes: ‘I have seen,’ said he, after the passing of the celebrated consolidated Slave Laws of Jamaica, and of other islands, ‘I have seen what has been done by the West Indian Assemblies. It is arrant trifling: - they have done little, and what they have done is good for nothing, for it is totally destitute of an executory principle.’” (40, emphasis added)

Wilberforce even said this of his efforts to register slaves to prevent their illegal importation in 1816:

“One grand class of such laws, passed, indeed, at a considerably later period, –acts of the colonial assemblies for registering the slaves, with a view to prevent illicit importation, –are shown, by a report of the African Institution, to be wholly and manifestly ineffectual in their purpose.” (41, emphasis added)

Wilberforce very clearly admitted that the efforts that he thought were prudent and forward-thinking in the face of virulent opposition to ending slavery had little effect on the evil that he faced, nor were the mitigations of slavery that were passed actually good or even effective at making life for the slaves better, because they were “totally destitute of an executory principle” and the slave owners had the power to elude those laws at pleasure. He states that his own strategy of targeting the slave trade in the hopes that it would inevitably prepare the way for total emancipation was one that was built on sandy ground, and now it was of the utmost importance that slavery be abolished as well.

He writes:

“But raise these poor creatures from their depressed condition, and if they are not yet fit for the enjoyment of British freedom, elevate them at least from the level of the brute creation to that of rational nature—dismiss the driving whip, and thereby afford place for the development of the first rudiments of civil character—implant in them the principle of hope—let free scope be given for their industry, and for their rising in life by their personal good conduct—give them an interest in defending the community to which they belong—teach them that lesson which Christianity can alone truly inculcate, that the present life is but a short and uncertain span, to which will succeed an eternal existence of happiness or misery—inculcate on them, on the authority of the sacred page, that the point of real importance is not what is the rank or station men occupy, but how they discharge the duties of life—how they use the opportunities they may enjoy of providing for their everlasting happiness.” (76)

Having read what Wilberforce himself wrote about his political activism, there are a few takeaways that we can apply to the pro-life movement today, as well as items for reflection as we consider what kind of legislation we ought to propose to eradicate abortion.

First and foremost: Wilberforce was a man of deep conviction and faith. He was driven by his belief that all people are created in the image of God and ought to be treated as equal under law. Most pro-lifers today share this conviction, but we do not share the exact same perspectives as he did, because slavery in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and abortion today are very different in certain respects. For example, Wilberforce believed that all slaves were people, deserving of equal rights, but he (wrongly) did not believe that it would be beneficial to the slaves or to society to emancipate them immediately. He wanted to gradually emancipate all slaves because they were not yet fit for freedom in his mind. Contrast this with what we believe today: unborn children are people, deserving of rights, and we believe immediately protecting the unborn would be beneficial for all! Those who declare that an incremental approach was used by Wilberforce to end slavery need to understand that he used this approach because he feared the quality of life of the slaves would not have been changed for the better had he tried to abolish slavery outright. He feared that the slaves were not prepared to live in freedom and that civil unrest would occur should the government immediately grant slaves their right to it. We do not share those fears. We firmly believe that all unborn children are ready for their right to life.

Second, as mentioned previously, Wilberforce did not seek the gradual abolition of the slave trade. He viewed the slave trade as entirely evil, with no redeeming qualities. He saw it as “man stealing,” something expressly prohibited by God in Exodus 21:16. He repeatedly proposed bills for the immediate abolition of the slave trade, and did not waver in condemning its immorality. He vehemently denounced those in favour of incrementally abolishing the slave trade and called them the greatest opponents of his legislative efforts. He even went so far as to say that they “. . .thus proved in fact the most efficient supporters of the Slave Trade” (294, A Letter). Even though he did vote to support the “incremental” Dolben Act of 1788 (a bill that limited the number of slaves per square foot on slave ships) before he was able to put forward his own bill for the abolition of the slave trade, he later wrote in A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade that the Dolben Act actually benefitted the slave traders and owners (275).

The final lesson we can take away from Wilberforce’s work is that he denied the effectiveness of his own strategy! There can be no doubt that ending the slave trade did prevent countless thousands from being stolen away from their homeland and forced into a life of servitude, and while that was a good thing, in the words of Wilberforce in An Appeal to the Religion, Justice, and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire: In Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies:

“We were too sanguine in our hopes as to the effects of the abolition on our colonies; we thought too well of the colonial assemblies; we judged too favourably of human nature; we did not allow weight enough to the effects of rooted prejudice and inveterate habits—to absenteeship, a vice which taken in its whole extent, is perhaps one of the most injurious of the whole system; to the distressed finances of the planters; and, above all, to the effects of the extreme degredations of the Negro slaves, and to the long and entire neglect of Christianity among them, with all its attendant blessings.” (36)

The abolition of the slave trade was ineffective at reducing the injustices occurring in the British Colonies because the humanity and equality of the slaves were still denied and the demand for new slaves merely drove up the illegal importation of “fresh” slaves. Wilberforce recognized that while it may seem prudential to target the merchants of injustice, it will have little effect on those who demand injustice (the slave owners), because the humanity of the victims has still not been recognized. A direct connection can be made to the pro-life movement today. If we only target our merchants of injustice (abortionists and abortion pill providers), it will have little effect on those who demand injustice (parents seeking abortion). We ought not make the same mistake that he did and assume that our culture will recognize the humanity of all unborn by legal measures that do not firmly and clearly enshrine that fact.

In conclusion, while we have much to learn from him, we ought not model our legislative strategy after Wilberforce’s strategy, because his was flawed, as he himself admitted. He did not focus on the humanity and equality of the slaves in his legislation, and as a result, slaves were still legally treated as sub-human, the populace continued in their prejudices, and the demand for more slaves and the mistreatment of existing slaves remained. Should we fail to demonstrate that all unborn children ought to be equal to us under law, we will not have success. We must work tirelessly to reform our culture and when we are able, we must propose legislation that will work—legislation that fully upholds the principles on which we stand: all unborn children are human beings, worthy of equal protection under law. This God-given truth is what will change our culture; nothing else will break the inveterate habits of our sinful nation.