I’ve argued that pro-lifers should vote for Trump and the Republicans this November despite their recent backpedaling on the pro-life cause, because allowing the Democrats to win will result in many more babies being murdered. We should always act to save the most babies possible. Since more babies would be saved under Trump than under Harris, we should vote for Trump and the GOP.
However, some pro-lifers have a different perspective. They argue that if we vote for Republicans next week simply because they are better than the Democrats, and they win, they’ll have little reason to revert the platform back to its strong pro-life position in 2026. If the GOP knows they can win elections without the pro-life vote, or if they know that pro-lifers will always vote for them because they are better than the Democrats on abortion, they will have no motivation to reverse course and re-adopt their former platform on abortion. Indeed, they are likely to deprioritize the issue going forward and continue making concessions to Leftists. So as a strategic move, these pro-lifers suggest that we let the Democrats win this election to teach the Republicans a lesson, namely that they need to be a strong and principled pro-life party if they ever hope to win another election.
I understand and sympathize with this POV from a strategic perspective, but ultimately disagree. There are other ways to send a message to the GOP that they need to restore their prior pro-life position without causing them to lose this election. One way is to literally send them a message. If tens of thousands of pro-lifers write the GOP and tell them they’ll vote Republican this time, but not in the future if they don’t restore their pro-life position, the GOP will get the message and hopefully reverse course in the future. If they don’t, then they may have to suffer the consequences in future elections.
Second, I don’t think this strategy would only be a short-term loss to secure a long-term gain. It will be both a short-term and long-term loss. The Democrats have already signaled their intention to pass a national law allowing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. That would invalidate all of the state laws that have outlawed or severely restricted abortion. And we know that once a law is passed giving people certain “rights,” it is nearly impossible to take that away later.
Additionally, we need to consider all of the other long-term damage that Democrats could do to our nation if they assume power in 2025. Censorship will get worse. They could make Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia states, thereby securing Democrat rule in Congress for a generation or more. They will be able to choose the next one or two Supreme Court justices, and may even pack the court with additional justices. On top of all this there will be the continued economic consequences of their foolish economic policies of tax and spend. I could go on, but I think the point is made. The short-term losses would be immense, and those short-term losses cannot be reversed very easily, making them long-term losses as well.
Throwing the elections to Democrats may cause the GOP to get the message that they need to reverse their position on abortion, but if the changes that Democrats make in the next four years make it unlikely that Republicans will get majority power for at least another generation, then what good is the GOP platform? If they aren’t in power, they can’t implement that platform. So yes, we need to get the mouse in the GOP house, but if our method of exterminating the mouse results in burning down the house, our efforts will be in vain. I know that emotions are running high right now (as they should be), but we need to think through our response to the GOP, and it seems clear to me that the worst thing we could do right now for our country and for the unborn is to throw the election to the Democrats.
November 1, 2024 at 6:05 pm
“Since more babies would be saved under Trump than under Harris, we should vote for Trump and the GOP.”
How was this conclusion reached?
LikeLike
November 2, 2024 at 12:54 am
Disclaimer: I am not an American, so this is my view looking from the outside.
I do agree that saving the babies is a pretty high priority item, but as I see it, it is far more complicated than that.
I suspect Christian voters will probably take into consideration a plethora of other issues and I don’t think it is wise to prescribe to voters to choose to vote one way or another.
Also, as far as I see it, none of the candidates are Christian. Even if they may claim some sort of alliance or say the right words, their actions definitely does not demonstrate this. Therefore, Christian voters will need more than ever to pray for guidance in this election. If I was an American, I would honestly not know who to choose from the available options.
Blessing to you all.
LikeLike
November 2, 2024 at 6:47 am
Far be it from me to want to dissuade you from encouraging people to not vote for Trump, but I see some flaws in your position.
The first is that you are very much in the minority on abortion. Not only do almost 2/3 of Americans want legal access to abortion, but even the vast majority of Christians believe abortion should be legal. That includes Catholics, even though their doctrine is against it: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/.
Second, what you see as “saving babies” is seen as anti-women by the vast majority of Americans. Pregnancy and birth are dangerous enough as it is, but the risks have risen substantially in states that have banned abortion:
▶ Mothers living in a state that banned abortion after Dobbs were up to 3x as likely to die during pregnancy, childbirth, or soon after giving birth.
▶ Babies born in banned states were 30% more likely to die in their first month of life.
▶ 2x as many single mothers were uninsured in banned states than in supportive states.
▶ The teen birth rate was 2x as high in banned states.
(https://thegepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/GEPI-State-of-Repro-Health-Report-US.pdf)
Supporting legislation that kills more women is not exactly “pro-life,” is it?
Keep in mind that the expected “red wave” of 2022 failed to materialize, specifically because the Supreme Court allowed states to take away abortion rights. And every time abortion rights have been put on ballots, it has won.
Finally, if your religion prohibits some behavior, it prohibits you from that behavior. It does not prohibit us from that behavior. After all, you wouldn’t want prohibited from, say, eating certain meats just because someone else’s religion prohibits their followers from eating those meats, would you?
LikeLike
November 2, 2024 at 1:07 pm
Krazeeboi, the most obvious example is that Harris has vowed to pass a national law that would enshrine Roe v. Wade into law (what she wants is actually more extreme than Roe, effectively allowing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy), thereby invalidating all of the pro-life laws in conservative states. That will result in more dead babies. Trump would continue with the status quo, allowing each state to choose their own laws.
LikeLike
November 2, 2024 at 1:08 pm
Derek, your point is beside the point because my audience for that post is not the general American. The intended audience is committed pro-lifers who are conflicted about the best political strategy for achieving their pro-life goal of making abortion unthinkable in this country. Whether the majority of Americans agree with us or not makes no different to the intention of the post.
As for your stats, there is a lot I would like to say, but I won’t challenge the claims themselves. Let’s assume they are true. It should be more than obvious that if fewer babies are murdered in utero, then more mothers will carry their babies to term. If the maternal death rates and newborn death rates remain constant, you would fully expect the number of maternal deaths and newborn deaths to increase. But one thing that definitely decreases is the number of children who will die, and those who do, they will die a natural death instead of being murdered by doctors at the request of their mothers.
You “asked” me, “Supporting legislation that kills more women is not exactly ‘pro-life,’ is it?” Ok, so I’m going to have to challenge your statistics now. When it comes to maternal deaths, we have to distinguish between women who die while pregnant or after pregnancy from those whose death is caused by their pregnancy. Second, how many women die each year due to being pregnant or giving birth? It can’t be a very high number. Let’s assume it was 1000 before Dobbs and it’s 3000 now. If outlawing abortion could save even 50,000 children from being murdered, the net result is way fewer deaths. That’s a very pro-life position. And think about it – if pro-lifers are right, and abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, would anyone in their right mind say that we ought to allow millions of women to murder millions of babies to prevent a few hundred women from dying from pregnancy complications because the State would not allow them to murder their own children first? If they had their way, they would have murdered their own child. What sane society would say a person ought to be allowed to murder their own children in order to save their own lives? Should we make bank robbery legal because some bank robbers will die in the process of robbing banks?
Actually, no, my religion doesn’t just prohibit me from murdering people. It prohibits all people from murdering others. And our secular laws agree with my religion that murder is wrong. They simply make an exception for murdering unborn human beings because it is convenient to kill them. Anyone who believes that murder is wrong (which should be everyone who is not a sociopath) should recognize that abortion is murder. You don’t need to be religious, yet alone Christian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 2, 2024 at 1:15 pm
Nicc777, yes, there are other issues to consider, but they pale in comparison in importance (and I would argue that on those other issues that matter, the Democrats are on the wrong side of those as well). Imagine if Republicans supported slavery. Would you be saying to those who planned to vote for Republicans anyway, “I suspect Christian voters will probably take into consideration a plethora of other issues and I don’t think it is wise to prescribe to voters to choose to vote one way or another”? Of course not. You would think that any Christian who voted for Republicans is morally insane and voting against their moral convictions. As bad as slavery is, abortion is even worse, so why would we think that it’s morally acceptable for Christians to give political power to those who will use that power to ensure that mothers can continue to murder their children without consequence?
As for whether the candidates or Christian or not, I don’t care. I’m not electing a pastor. I’m electing someone to enact the right policies. I would elect an atheist so long as he will use his political power to eradicate abortion. Policies matter more than religious belief or personal character.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 5, 2024 at 9:22 am
“As for your stats, there is a lot I would like to say, but I won’t challenge the claims themselves. Let’s assume they are true.”
Feel free to challenge my claims, but Pew Research is one of the world’s most highly respected and reliable polling organizations. Here’s the relevant section: “About three-quarters of White evangelical Protestants (73%) think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. By contrast, 86% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do 71% of Black Protestants, 64% of White nonevangelical Protestants and 59% of Catholics.”
“It should be more than obvious that if fewer babies are murdered in utero, then more mothers will carry their babies to term. If the maternal death rates and newborn death rates remain constant, you would fully expect the number of maternal deaths and newborn deaths to increase.”
You might think so, but the evidence shows otherwise. From the World Health Organization: “Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions (1); however, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified.” https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion.
Furthermore, more WOMEN die when abortion is restricted, because most will do whatever they have to to get an abortion—which means going back to the days of dangerous coat-hanger abortions and unregulated back-alley abortions. Finally, babies born to mothers ill-prepared to take care of them results in MORE infant deaths (and far more horrible deaths than ending the life of a fetus that has no capacity for pain).
“if pro-lifers are right, and abortion is the murder of an innocent human being, would anyone in their right mind say that we ought to allow millions of women to murder millions of babies”
How about the fact that murdering babies is theologically justified? Hear me out:
What happens when a baby dies? Many apologists—perhaps you included—claim dead babies automatically go to heaven, but the Bible doesn’t support this. Instead it says that we are all BORN sinful…
…and that the ONLY way to salvation is by being born again:
Since babies are too young to even understand the concept of God, much less believe in him or choose to follow him, if they die, doesn’t that mean they will go to hell to be tortured for all eternity?
Of course, the idea that dead babies go to hell for not being born again is completely unacceptable to those who believe God is good, so some apologists evoke the “age of accountability” to give dead babies a free pass to heaven. But the age of accountability exists NOWHERE in the Bible, something Christians themselves concede: http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html.
Worse, consider the implications. Clearly, the Bible says few adults will be saved:
So, if few adults will be saved but every dead baby will be saved, then there is THEOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION for killing every baby. Sure, the Bible says not to kill, but it also says God wants EVERY soul to be saved:
Mass infanticide would help God save as many souls as possible, and all you would have to do afterwards is ask for forgiveness and be saved:
So God either sends dead babies to hell…or he’s created theological justification for murdering babies. Either way, that would make the God of the Bible horrifically evil, wouldn’t it? (This is why I personally find the Bible repugnant: it can—and has been—so easily be used to justify committing atrocities, from Moses all the way to Hitler.)
But as you can see, even Christians in their “right minds” can justify murder.
“Actually, no, my religion doesn’t just prohibit me from murdering people. It prohibits all people from murdering others. And our secular laws agree with my religion that murder is wrong.”
No, your religion prohibits YOU from doing things, not anyone else. The reason we have laws against murder is not because of the Bible, but because NO society can survive without them. In fact, the Code of Hammurabi prohibited murder HUNDREDS OF YEARS before Moses received the 10 Commandments. Your religion does not factor into our laws. In fact, our Constitution GUARANTEES that.
“They simply make an exception for murdering unborn human beings because it is convenient to kill them. Anyone who believes that murder is wrong (which should be everyone who is not a sociopath) should recognize that abortion is murder. You don’t need to be religious, yet alone Christian.”
Ah, but that’s not true. Personhood is what matters, and a fetus doesn’t have personhood—it’s only a POTENTIAL person…just as sperm and ova are potential persons. Yet do we consider it murder to allow human eggs to go unfertilized? Of course not, we think nothing of it. Sperm and ova have NO intrinsic value EXCEPT when a couple intends to reproduce. And NOBODY can be forced to donate blood or organs to someone else, even to save a life—you can’t even take organs from a dead person without prearranged permission! So why should a woman be forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term?
Furthermore, the Bible says nothing AGAINST abortion (which is very strange, considering how big of an issue this is for many Christians), even though abortions have existed since at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. In fact, the Bible TEACHES priests to use abortion as a form of punishment for infidelity:
I respect your belief that abortion is wrong and that YOU and anyone who shares your belief should not get an abortion. But why do you feel you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others? Would you think it reasonable for Muslims to require you to give up pork and pray to Mecca five times a day? Besides, as I pointed out, most CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES disagree with you, and I think the arguments I’ve presented show that your position is insufficiently nuanced to justify.
LikeLike
December 19, 2024 at 6:54 am
Krazeeboi, the most obvious example is that Harris has vowed to pass a national law that would enshrine Roe v. Wade into law…That will result in more dead babies.
Only Congress can pass such a law.
LikeLike