This has to go down as one of the most fascinating weeks in American history.

Our first African-American president is inaugurated right after Martin Luther King’s birthday. Within a week, another grave anniversary befalls us: Roe vs. Wade. All three events have a common thread and weave a most disturbing irony.

As I write this, pro-choice activists are celebrating “the 36th birthday” of Roe vs. Wade. I’ve always thought “birthday” was an ironic way to celebrate a “right” to deny others their naturally appointed day of birth.

To date, 50 million have had this right forcefully taken since the 1973 ruling. Some very twisted cultural commentators have attempted to justify Roe vs. Wade’s moral grounding by “proving” that the violent disposal of 50 million unborn babies has somehow made for a lower crime rate. History is rife with social engineers who attempted to perfect the state of the human race by the same means (extermination of the so-called “unfit”).

Most of us readily acknowledge that such attempts at creating a utopian society always lead to the darkest eras of human history. Who among us wants to be told by an outside entity (even our own mothers) whether we are fit to live or die?

Another disturbing irony was at play this week during the historic, if not euphoric, inauguration of our first African-American president. President Barack Obama chose to be sworn in using Abraham Lincoln’s Bible, and he used the theme of Lincoln throughout his inauguration celebrations. Let’s explore that connection further.

Abraham Lincoln is recognized as the father of the Republican Party for a very interesting reason. During the campaign of 1860, slavery was an issue that divided the nation passionately, but not for the reasons so many assume. It was not merely a North-South divide, but a political philosophy that was at stake. Many Americans who did not own slaves or even live in the South believed that slavery was a matter of conscience. They called their movement “slaveholders’ rights” and believed, like most conservatives today, that the federal government’s power should be limited regarding controversial matters.

Each state had its unique culture, preferred religious sentiments, vastly different commercial interests and geographical limitations. Slavery was merely considered one of those issues that needed to be considered in light of practical implications. When Abraham Lincoln was nominated as the Republican candidate, he drew a line in the sand against the states’ rights, “slaveholders’ rights” Republicans.

Lincoln rightly believed that certain practices were such an affront to human dignity; no country could withstand the spiritual ravages and punishments incurred by their acceptance. It was a non-negotiable issue for him despite his many advisers pleading that he be “moderate” on this issue, claiming that he could never be elected with such an uncompromising position.

For most pro-life activists, abortion is our slavery issue of the day. We believe it is a non-negotiable affront to human dignity — and its acceptance and tolerance have earned us a shameful place in human history that rivals slavery and the holocausts of Hitler, Stalin and Lenin.

Those who call us “single issue voters” have still not acknowledged the moral gravity of abortion. There’s a difference between a fundamental issue and a single issue. Using the full force of the law to sanction and even fund the willful and targeted killing of innocent life is a category unto itself, like no other. Its consequences — 50 million deaths — are far graver than any other issue we face.

No modern thinker has articulated more clearly the problem that such moderates bring than Dr. Martin Luther King. Writing from a Birmingham jail to some well-meaning sympathizers who criticized him for being so impatient, King speaks to the problem of “moderates” in the cause for justice:

“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action;’ who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” — Letter from a Birmingham Jail

The irony of all is that President Obama, his own standing largely due to the sweat and anguish of Lincoln and Dr. King, will advance the cause of denying the dignity and justice due to the unborn. It will embolden the power of one class of people (women, profiteering doctors and government agencies) to determine the choice of life or death over another class (unborn innocents).

What a tangled web we weave. God save us.