So far I have avoided all political speak on this blog. But the upcoming election has got my attention on several fronts, one of which has me very concerned.
As much as I dislike the war and our troops’ continued presence in Iraq, I dislike the fact of murder far more. Murder is not simply killing another human person. If it were, then murder would be killing someone in self-defense. Instead, murder is defined as killing an innocent human person. So, why can’t I vote for Obama? My stance is simple.
- At the moment of conception and every moment thereafter the fetus is a human person and, therefore, has the right to life that every human person does.
(On this see Frank Beckwith’s Abortion, Bioethics and Personhood: A Philosophical Reflection or read his Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.)
- Because of the first point above, voluntary abortion is not merely the removal and disposal of an unwanted body part (like a piece of an overgrown toenail), but the killing of an innocent (unborn) human person.
- Killing innocent human persons is tantamount to murder and all murder is morally wrong.
(Notwithstanding an instance where the pregnant mother’s life is significantly threatened by giving birth, in which case the child no longer is “innocent” because it could be viewed as passively threatening the mother’s life.)
- The choices of a pregnant mother should never trump the right to life for an innocent (unborn) human person.
- Despite the unwanted pregnancy of a victim from rape or incest, the (unborn) human person (a.k.a. “fetus”) has not forfeited his/her right to life merely because they are the “outcome” of a heinous crime.
- Because of all the above, the victim of an unwanted pregnancy should be afforded every means possible to offer up the child for adoption.
(Note: Megachurches of our day could make considerable progress to this end if, instead of expanding staff and their “campuses”, it would divert significant resources accordingly. On this see Evangelicals Start Adoption Push.) Moreover, James 1:27 makes it clear that “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans [read ‘defenseless human persons’].”
- Any individual who supports legislation or a Constitution that permits the free choice to take unnecessarily the lives of innocent, defenseless (unborn) human persons is not morally equipped for the office of the presidency of the United States (this is not to say that being “morally equipped” is sufficient criteria for the office, but it is certainly necessary criteria).
By all means, get us out of Iraq! But above all means may my vote honor all defenseless (unborn) human persons, thus offering up religion that God our Father accepts!
If you wish to be informed on Obama’s abortion position, please read:
- The Freedom of Choice Act
- Obama Statement on 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Decision
- A Catholic Case Against Barack
Paul, I wholeheartedly agree! Thanks for the post. I’ll reference it from my blog.
Very well put. I would add that his stance on abortion is not the only reason not to vote for him, but that’s another discussion! Take care!
Yea. I can think of a few other reasons not to vote for O as well, but the issue of the right to life is paramount…at least for me.
Thanks, X! Blessings to you and yours.
I love what Fred Thompson said tonight at the RNC. “We don’t need a president that thinks that the protection of the unborn or the newly born is above his pay grade!” Amen!!
Abortion is a moral crime, but we can not be a one issue country or person. What about the morality of voting against the minimum wage, giving tax breaks to the rotten rich, causing the economy to deteriorate to the point of people losing their homes, and their jobs to big business overseas.Spending $10B a month on a war that was contrived. I could go on and on.
Are there two levels of morality? Is one sin greater than another?
Hey Jim…thanks for chiming in here! I certainly agree that there are a variety of very important issues to sift through with our upcoming election. My contention is that not all issues are created equally. Clearly a vote against/for raising the minimum wage pales in comparison to defending the life of a defenseless, unborn child. For instance, while a single mother who has to work for minimum wage may hold the vote to raise her wages near to her heart, my guess is that she holds the life of her children even closer!
As for being a “one issue person,” I think I understand and appreciate your take on this, but let me see if I can make sense of it. If one person held that all issues are equally important, then that makes all issues morally equivalent. If all issues are morally equivalent, then no issue can be supremely important over another. Right?
Seems to be that, at the end of the day, each person will have to pick one issue as “most important.” Based upon my context as a Christian, I hold the right to life and a “culture of life” (to quote Senator McCain from tonight’s speech) in first place. For others, they may choose their most important issue as gun control or gay/lesbian civil unions. That we all have different starting points is what brings out the beauty of this nation’s diversity. But logically only one issue can hold the “most important” position for one person. Otherwise, no issues are better than others.
Just thinking….again ;-).
Our family is against abortion like you and the others who have responded to your thoughts. Not for one moment do we condone the killing of the unborn! God will be the ultimate judge of us all – including those who uphold abortion. He is a merciful and a just God.
Thanks for your sharing your convictions, Jim. That God will indeed be the ultimate judge is a humbling and motivating thought and it levels the playing field on ALL sides. May his mercy and justice prevail in the end.
I agree on abortion, Paul; but not on getting us out of Iraq at all costs.
The surge is working. If we leave too soon, the country will become a bloodbath and probably revert to terrorists from Iran and elsewhere. Then all the deaths of US troops would be in vane.
Let’s not have another Viet Nam. That war was essentially won, but the peace was not kept when the US backed out. The killing fields resulted and an American disgrace.
Pro Life is not a description of an attitude and passion toward the unborn only. Pro Life is a comprehensive attitude and passion toward life in general. [At least, it could be and likely should be.] If one broadens Pro Life to include the conflict for freedom for the Iraqis, then we may be able to more clearly understand a distinction between the attitudes and statements (up coming policy decisions, as well as those already public) of the two presidential candidates.
Certainly not consistently nor completely, nor morally, has the United States executed actions pertaining to the freedom of other peoples. But we are, it seems safe to say, a nation with a large population segment that has a concern for the liberation of the oppressed. Others of us don’t share the same concern, permitting the oppressed to remain such because we simply don’t care or we care about the cost to us above the rescue of oppressed peoples. Or, we’re so concerned about maintaining and exercising our freedoms that we can’t think objectively about the needs of others .
McCain seems to have a clear conviction about what freedom and liberation are and he seems willing to do the demanded job to set captives free and to ensure freedom. To me, this is Pro Life in the expanded sense. I believe the founders of the United States shared similar convictions and resolve. Obama, sadly, seems unable or unwilling to understand the stakes of an improper pullout from Iraq. The Iraqis may also not understand the implications. Do we, truly?
Perhaps it is because I served my county by years of active duty military commitment that I am more McCain’ish on the broader Pro Life topics and believe Obama’s views (as they exist today) to be more generally self-serving. Speaking as a former soldier, I wanted to win a conflict or give my life with winning in mind. I hope I was not short-term minded, but instead hope that my life would have been given in exchange for the freedom of others to live if I couldn’t. Even if the initial reason for invading Iraq wasn’t pure, that in no way removes the responsibility we have now to do the best for Iraqi liberation. The unborn and the post-born both deserve those who support life over those who support either death or diminished life. And if I cannot accept a generalized principle of diminished life for myself, then why should I demand others to endure it without hope?
Thanks, Doug, for putting into perspective what so many others seemingly fail to observe; namely, that a false dichotomy has emerged in this election. Ether we vote for someone who wants to end the war as soon as possible or vote for someone who is Prollife. Instead, we should vote for someone who is both Prolife and wants to end the war with clear victory in mind. Victory is spelled P-E-A-C-E and McCain no doubt wants that more than anything; moreover he is Prolife. The better moral choice between the candidates is clear.
I recall McCain stating emphatically in his RNC speech “I hate war.” He no more wants to remain in Iraq unnecessarily than he wanted to remain in his prison cell as a POW. Yet, just as he did choose to remain a POW for a greater cause (did you get that…HE CHOSE TO REMAIN A POW!!), he is willing to remain in Iraq until the job is finished.
Of course, leaving Iraq in shams without paying the necessary price to secure peace in that country would clearly be foolish and contra Prolife, as Carl’s post indicates. While both candidates wish to end the war, only one has victory in mind that is not of the same stripe as Viet Nam. We must minimize the killing of innocent human life where ever and however possible to be consistently Prolife.