Scott Klusendorf is the best pro-life apologist out there. No one can say as much as Scott can say in as little space and as eloquently as he can. He wrote an essay for the Christian Research Journal addressing five questions often asked of pro-life advocates and the pro-life movement:
- Are pro-life advocates focused too narrowly on abortion? After all, informed voters consider many issues, not just one.
- Why don’t pro-life advocates care about social justice both here and in developing countries?
- Why don’t pro-lifers oppose war like they do abortion?
- Instead of passing laws against abortion, shouldn’t pro-life Christians focus on reducing its underlying causes?
- Should pastors challenge church members who support a political party sworn to protect elective abortion?
It’s worth checking out his answers. It is not a long piece, and he provides some great answers to ponder.
Thinking to Believe 
February 2, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Should a Christian choose the lesser of two evils and vote? Probably. Should we vote for a man who supports abortion, or should we vote for a man who sends our young men, and now women, off to fight senseless wars? Klusendorf claims that not all wars are evil. Maybe, but the past several do not fit in the category Klusendorf is imagining. I cannot imagine Jesus voting for anyone who has ran for president the past 30 years.
LikeLike
February 2, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Klusendorf is right on!
I, personally, cannot justify voting for anyone that will endorse the killing of any innocent human beings. If Romney gets the nomination on the Republican ticket, I will not be voting for him. I will probably go the write-in route.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 11:28 am
Randy and Andy,
What leads to a greater loss of innocent life: the wars we are engaged in, or the babies we allow to be aborted? There is no perfect candidate. But when it comes to voting, I think we need to vote according to which candidate will do the most to further justice and diminish evil. Of the two issues, abortion is clearly the greater evil because it kills far greater numbers of innocent human lives. And when it comes down to a choice between Obama–who is the most radical pro-abortion president ever–and a (at least) moderately pro-life candidate such as Romney, I think the choice is clear. We must ask ourselves whether we want our vote to make a statement, or to make an impact. Voting for a write-in who has no chance of winning is, practically speaking, a vote for Obama, which is a vote for expanding abortion. I want my vote to make a difference, not a statement. I will vote for the candidate who will do the most to restrain evil and promote justice, even if they do not do so to the degree they should, and to the degree I would like. We have to make the best of the situation that is dealt to us. The lesser of two evils (if that is the way one sees it) is the greater good.
Jason
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 12:07 pm
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
I’ve weighed what I know about Romney and I have tried to come up with any justifiable Christian case to validate a vote for him. I cannot.
The bottom line is that I will at some point have to stand before God and give an account for my actions. As an American, I believe this includes the votes I have cast for government leaders. If someone can make that case, that’s great. Because I cannot, I will not vote for Romney.
And for the record, abortion is not the only reason I am not voting for Romney.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Andy,
That is where you and I disagree. I do not think the lesser of two evils is evil. If forced between betraying innocent blood and lying, I think we are morally obligated to lie in order to preserve the greater good, and that such an action is not morally wrong. The same applies to voting and politics.
As for your vote, do you think that Romney and Obama are, on balance, equals when it comes to promoting justice? I would think not. And yet it is most likely that one of them will be our next president. Do you realize that whether you like it or not, you will help decide who is elected? If you do not vote, or vote for a non-electable candidate, that that is a vote for Obama, and you may very well help get him re-elected, and we wil end up with a president who is less just (in my opinion)? Why not vote for a less than ideal candidate who is more just, thereby minimizing evil and increasing justice in the land?
I know you think this is a matter of voting your conscience, but there is something to be said against such a practice when voting your conscience ensures that more evil will pervade our land. If you are interested in justice, then your vote should count toward increasing justice in the land. While we wish that we could always vote for the ideal “good” candidate, that is rarely available to us. I would rather vote for a guy I don’t much care for–who will do a better job at promoting justice than the other guy–than I would not vote or vote for a non-electable candidate which has the unintended effect of helping the candidate who is the least just to get elected. I want to make a difference, not a statement. Voting is not like signing a creedal statement. It is not our stamp of approval for everything the candidate stands for. It is our strategic move to help ensure that justice is promoted in the land to the best degree possible given our options. I mean no disrespect, but I question the thinking and commitment to justice of someone who is willing to let a man who is less just get elected simply because the other candidates were less than ideal. I want to promote justice, and while Romney is not my ideal candidate, his platform, values, and policies are more just than President Obama’s, and thus I would vote for him in the interest of promoting as much justice as I possibly can given the political cards dealt to me. I would argue that if you cannot in good conscience vote for a more just candidate simply because he is not just enough, knowing that this may have the effect of increasing evil in the land, that this is cause for you to pause and reflect on your conscience. A conscience that can do X, knowing that X will lead to more evil is not a conscience that is properly informed.
Jason
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 1:53 pm
The lesser of two evils is, by definition, necessarily evil.
I would posit that lying, in your hypothetical situation, would not be morally wrong. The harboring of slaves in the underground railroad, while breaking the law (civil) and necessarily lying to any inquirers and thus breaking the moral Law of God, would also not be considered a moral wrong. Just as harboring Jews in Nazi Germany and lying about that would not be a moral wrong. Even the Bible applauds lying when, in Heb 11:31, it commends Rehab, the harlot for receiving the Hebrew spies. How did she “receive them”? By lying to the authorities. For this, she is listed among the likes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, etc… all because she lied. Do you think the writer of Hebrews is endorsing immoral actions?
The problem I see with your example is the fundamental misunderstanding of what lying is. I would define lying as “immoral deception.” Not all deceptions are immoral, as I have already shown. These examples, including the one mentioned by you, are not moral dilemmas, rather they are ethical dilemmas. Thus, I think you falsely equate the two.
Now, back to the issue at hand. You asked if I think Romney and Obama are equal when it comes to promoting justice. I do not. I think actually believe that the lesser of two evils between Romney and Obama is Obama. Allow me to explain.
Both Romney and Obama made abortions more readily available.
Both Romney and Obama have normalized sodomy.
Both Romney and Obama have enforced increased theft of money and wealth redistrubution.
Both Romney and Obama mandated health coverage.
And I could continue.
Where Romney is worse than Obama is when Romney tried to cover up his record and say that he has not done any of these things listed above (which is a nice way of saying he lied). He has claimed to be Pro-Life after his epiphanic conversion in 2005 (lie). He has promoted himself as a champion of natural, traditional marriage (lie). He has sold himself as a tax cutter (lie). He has defended his healthcare mandate and claimed that it was the right thing to do (lie).
Obama on the other hand has told the truth about all of these things. We knew he would make baby killing more available. We knew he would be a friend of the sodomite. We knew he would steal from each according to their ability and give to each according to their need. We knew he would force us to buy a good/service that we may not want or need. He was quite clear about all of those things.
So, if given the choice between a wolf (Obama) and a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Romney), which would be the better choice? Which is the “less just” option?
You continually make the claim that Romney is more just than Obama and that a President Romney would bring more justice than President Obama would. Yet you never qualified your opinion. I would sincerely welcome an explanation as to why Romney is more just than Obama and how a Romney presidency would promote justice.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Also, it might be good if we define what we mean by “just” and “justice”.
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Andy, Help me understand. It seems you are willing to let children die while you wait for the perfect candidate. Could you explain the logic of that to me?
LikeLike
February 3, 2012 at 8:16 pm
Ed,
Not at all, you have either completely misunderstood my position or are drawing incorrect conclusions and misrepresenting my position.
First, I don’t think there is such a thing as the “perfect candidate”.
Second, aside from Romney and possibly Cain, I could have justified voting for any of this cycle’s presidential candidates.
I should interject here and let it be known that I am from Iowa, the first-in-the-nation caucus state. And as such, I am afforded the incredible opportunity to meet any and all of the presidential candidates that I want. This go around, starting as early as February of last year, I personally met and vetted Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry and Santorum, attending multiple events of all of those candidates. Romney, however, chose to bypass Iowa, but I did get the opportunity to meet him and vet him four years ago when he ran. I say all of that to make the point that I take my job as an Iowan very seriously and I have done my homework on all of the candidates.
That being said, my vetting process begins with the premises of the Declaration of Independence, the Foundational Document and the Organic Law of the United States. The fundamental premise of the Declaration of Independence is that the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. After that, the Declaration speaks of the self-evident Truths that the Creator has endowed human beings with the Unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and that the fundamental purpose for governments is to secure those God-given Rights.
I think the Unalienable Rights are listed in that order for a very logical reason. One cannot have the Right to pursue happiness (i.e. property) without the Right to Liberty, and the Right to Liberty is useless without the guarantee of the Right to Life. So, my primary issue is the Life issue, and that is where I begin my vetting process.
Therefore, any candidate that does not understand or value the Unalienable Right to Life will not get my vote. As the governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney signed into law a healthcare bill that gave provided $50-copay, taxpayer-funded elective abortions. That happened in 2006, well after his 2004 pro-life “conversion”. There are numerous other actions Governor Romney took following this “conversion” that are, at best, inconsistent with even the most liberal pro-life positions.
I would have been more than satisfied voting for any of the candidates aside from Romney and Cain, even though I don’t completely agree with them on the issue of Life, I do think that any of the others would be better than Romney and Cain on the issue of Life.
Bottom line: It’s not about the “perfect candidate”. It’s about the Unalienable Right to Life. Any candidate that does not understand and value that, cannot properly understand and value the Rights of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, nor the Constitution.
I hope that answers your questions and clarifies my position.
Thanks.
LikeLike
February 5, 2012 at 6:01 am
Andy, Suppose candidate ‘A’ has a flawed understanding the unalinenable right to life (and natural rights in general), but will nevertheless sign pro-life legislation saving some children insofar as the federal courts currently allow. Candidate ‘B’ will promote killing them wholesale. Why am I wrong to vote for “A?”
Klusendorf has another piece you should read on moving pro-life legislation forward (google it) and you may want to give it a look.
LikeLike
February 7, 2012 at 9:23 am
Good question, Ed. However, if candidate “A” has a flawed understanding of the Unalienable Right to Life, how can I know said candidate will sign Pro-Life legislation?
LikeLike
February 10, 2012 at 1:08 pm
Andy, Your question is irrelevant. I want to know why, as a matter of principle, I should not vote for ‘A.’ The epistemic question is secondary.
LikeLike
February 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm
As usual this is a great discussion.
I wanted to pose a few questions
to Jason and to those participating on this blog.
In your estimation why do the large majority of
U.S. citizens in the African American community
(who predominantly profess Christianity,
and espouse to conservative values),
vote primarily for liberal candidates?
(i.e. Democratic candidates).
Historically African Americans
supported the Republican Party and it candidates.
It is even believed that Dr. Martin Luther King also voted Republican.
It’s evident that the Republican Party played a key role in spearheading
reformative pieces of civil rights legislation in favor of African Americans.
What changed the sentiments in the African American community
to switch to the “left” wholesale?
Was there a change in the African American community or a change in the political parties themselves?(i.e. Republican/Democratic parties)
Thanks and I respect your opinions.
LikeLike
February 10, 2012 at 7:06 pm
There have been fundamental changes in the Republican Party. Eisenhower is surely turning over in his grave. Lincoln would be drummed out of the party. Even Regan would be astounded. Black people have been persecuted and lied to far more than the average middle class white and as a result they are often more sensitive. As a group, Blacks caught on to the GOP quicker than most whites. Someday, maybe even the Christians, that great heard of sheep who seldom think for themselves, will catch on.
LikeLike