Ben Witherington had a pro-Barack Obama post on his blog. In the comments section the issue turned to the question of his electability among Christian conservatives, given his stance on abortion. The following question was posed by a commenting blogger: “Will conservatives choose to ignore Obama’s otherwise fine character qualities because he dares to question the sacred pro-life cow?”
The way I answered his question gives me the opportunity to convey my thoughts on the primacy of abortion in the way we vote:
“Yes, Obama’s stance on abortion is justification to reject him from office. This is particularly so if the purpose of government is to promote justice. If killing innocent and defenseless human beings is a moral wrong, and Obama wants to protect the right of people to commit that moral wrong, then he is not fit for public office. A vote for Obama would be a vote for injustice.
“By no means is this analogy exact, but think of Hitler. Let’s say we had the opportunity to vote for him in an election. Would his stance on the killing of Jews disqualify him from being elected to office? Of course it would. He killed some six million Jews, the same number of people who are killed during a four year tenure of a President through abortion. I sure hope you wouldn’t vote for Hitler. He may have the best economic policies, the best foreign policies, etc., but his support for the killing of millions of innocent people trumps every other quality he may have. You might say, ‘But that is different!’ How so? The only thing that differs between the murder of Jews in Europe and the murder of babies in America is their size, location, level of development, and degree of dependency, none of which are morally relevant to their moral status as members of the human race. Abortion is the defining issue, particularly for the office of President.
“Abortion is not some ideological sacred cow that conservatives like to use as a wedge issue. We actually believe it is the slaughter of defenseless, innocent human beings. As human beings, the unborn are of no less value than are the born. If we had a situation in which 1.3 million 6 year olds were being murdered by their parents in this country, a Presidential candidate’s position on the topic would take front and center stage. But when the human being is tiny and hidden behind a veil of flesh, we are told to not be so concerned about the issue. Nonsense. Abortion is the decisive issue of our day, and while a candidate’s view on the issue may not matter for some levels of government, there is no office in which it matters more than the office of President. I don’t see how anyone who opposes abortion can vote for a pro-abortion candidate (assuming one of the candidates is pro-life). It’s not about party; it’s about valuing and protecting human life. That’s more important than the war, and more important than the economy. It trumps all other issues.”
Thinking to Believe 
May 9, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Jason,
Do you disagree with Frank Beckwith’s position on voting for pro-abortion candidates (for lesser offices than president) if said candidates are part of a party that would vote to confirm their pro-life president’s judicial appointees? I believe he indicated that this would be morally superior to voting for a pro-life candidate whose party would only promote pro-abortion judicial appointees. I noticed that the wording of your entry seemed to indicate you would part company with Beckwith on this point. Am I reading you correctly? (I am inquiring, not advocating Beckwith’s position over yours – or vice versa – if there is a difference of voting philosophy)
LikeLike
May 9, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Max,
Yes, I am aware of Beckwith’s scenario. Others have discussed this as well, notably Scott Klusendorf and his posse at Life Training Institute.
I don’t recall every detail of Beckwith’s argument off-hand, but I would say that overall I agree with him. I am not arguing that the abiding political principle of the pro-life movement is to vote for the pro-life candidate no matter what. Our abiding principle is to eliminate abortion. If that goal is more likely to be accomplished by voting for a pro-abortion candidate, then so be it. We vote for the person who will either directly, or indirectly save the lives of the most number of babies.
Side note: Sometimes there is no pro-life candidate running for office, in which case we have to cast our vote based on secondary and tertiary issues (a situation we may face in the 2008 presidential election if Rudy gets the Republican nomination).
If I remember correctly, the scenario Beckwith offers is highly specialized, and unlikely–unlikely enough to not merit me footnoting my remarks! The scenario is as along the following lines: The vote is between a pro-life Democrat and a pro-abortion Republican for US Senate. The Senate currently consists of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. If you elect the pro-life candidate, the Dems will have a 51 to 49 majority, giving them the 7th seat–and hence majority vote–on the judicial committee. Seeing that the Democratic party tends to block strict constructionist judges from being appointed to the Supreme Court, the committee would probably not let the judge go up for a vote. A vote for the pro-life candidate will actually prevent the possibility of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, and hence work against the pro-life cause.
If that was the scenario, I would vote for the pro-abortion candidate, but it’s unlikely (1) that you’ll have a pro-life Democrate facing a pro-abortion Republican in a race, that (2) this Senate race would tip the balance of power either way. It also requires (3) that a pro-life President will be in office at the time to nominate a strict constructionist judge. Possible, but not likely.
Jason
LikeLike