This post is about Christian political reasoning.
As much as some pro-life voters want to say it's not, nuance matters on the issue of legal abortion as well as US political office. I think for me to say this is not to cave or be weak, it is to think carefully. I say it again: all-or-nothing arguments are not accurate when it comes to these issues.
Recently, I was forwarded a blog post by a Christian friend who is voting on the abortion issue. The post he cited is by Randy Alcorn, and it began helpfully concerning Alcorn's interest in Obama as a pro-racial-equality, pro-environment candidate. And the end of the day Mr. Alcorn says he will not vote for Obama because of the abortion issue. While I definitely respect his position, I can't agree with all his rhetoric. Here's some comments:
Then the sad day came. I checked out Obama's actual position on abortion and I was demoralized. I found that in every single vote related to the issue he's favored abortion, its legality and even the killing of children who survive abortion.Obama is definitely "pro-choice." This is the Democratic party platform and he's supported it. I can't agree with him (or the party) on this issue.
But some facts should be clarified here. The most atrocious: that Barack Obama would allow a baby just born of a failed abortion to die (actually, Randy is stronger and says "kill"). If this is true, Obama is a monster!
Over-strong claims should be questioned from either side, and this one is awfully untrue. It defies common sense that it's repeated.
Obama did vote "present" (not "no") on the Born Alive Infants Protection act in the Illinois Senate. It's also true that he was the only senator to speak against the bill on the floor. Opponents want to frame this to make him look almost evil, or without a conscience. But better put: he was the only senator to take the time to explain his vote. And if you read his explanation on the floor, his concerns aren't anti-life. They are that he was pretty sure the way the current bill was worded, it would be ruled unconstitutional by the 7th Circuit Court.
We forget that Obama was a constitutional law professor. He has some useful opinions on these things.
In one of many later interviews on the section, Obama further explains that the law was redundant. The current Illinois State law, and explicitly federal law finally signed into law in 2002 already require doctors to give life-saving treatment to babies born viable of botched abortions. Not to mention the hippocratic oath of the Illinois Medical Association. The statue was more a political move than a real piece of legislation.
I'll stop my argument and agree that I think Obama could have voted better here. But baby-killing kind of insinuations are powerful images that stick even when they're more the result of bright paint than underlying substance. In short: it's unfair to demonize this too much.
But Obama is savvy. He wants to attract young voters, including young evangelical Christians who are sort-of-prolife. He knows to say that he favors reducing or limiting abortions.Can we point out that this is loaded language? By that to mean, the real argument of the sentences lies "under" the actual statement. "He knows to say" implies strong that Barack Obama is lying.
If this is the charge (and this is rather serious), this one must be supported instead of insinuated.
Which is like limiting rather than criminalizing murder and rape and kidnapping and slavery. A candidate could say “I’m personally opposed to rape,” while he has a 100% voting record favoring the legality of rape. And he could say he favors limiting or reducing the number of rapes. But if he actually supports the legality of the hideous crime of rape, discerning people would see through his rhetoric of rape-reduction.This argument is a logical fallacy. Abortion cannot be = to rape, kidnapping, slavery, etc, because there is no wide-spread controversy on any of these issues. Therefore they must be approached differently. I believe abortion is morally wrong (as with rape of course), but over 50% of the country doesn't.
Please read me carefully. I'm not saying actual morality is really determined by majority opinion. God only determines (and reveals) the beautiful and awful in his Creation. What I'm saying that it's a fatally flawed analogy for democratically elected politicians in a pluralistic society.
John McCain wasn’t my first choice for president. But at least McCain's a hero, he suffered for his country and fellow soldiers. And at least he thinks innocent children shouldn’t be slaughtered, and has consistently voted that way.The hero language just doesn't relate. :-7 I agree McCain's a Vietnam hero. I also am not sure it relates to being a Christian and voting for Obama when it comes to abortion.
McCain has voted consistently pro-life in the Sentate.
Too bad Presidents don't vote on legislation.
In fact, the President has little or no direct control on abortion in the United States. About the only thing they can directly control whether abortions on military bases overseas are federally funded. More on this in a second.
I am deeply concerned about the one, two or possibly three Supreme Court justices to be appointed in the next presidential termThe best link here would to any site showing George W. Bush as the presidential candidate in the 2000 election that was pro-life, would probably have to pick several judges, and if elected, would overturn Roe v Wade (like a debate transcript).
Let me say more directly: we've had a pro-life President for eight years. Has appointed two supreme court justices, one of them (wait for it…) … the Chief Justice! But has the legality of abortion changed?
My implication is this: the President of the United States doesn't have the power to end abortion in America. My conclusion is this: this is not what the thinking Christian votes on as a primary issue (an issue? Yes. The issue? Contradicts both logical sense and real life experience). (Maybe this Doonsbury says it better than I am...)Again, I'm not saying abortion is not a serious moral issue. I'm suggesting that a political vote for federal executive isn't the key way to affect it.
If you listen to the candidates, it's obvious that McCain/Palin would make a concerted effort to choose justices likely to reverse Roe v. Wade and it is equally obvious that Obama/Biden would choose justices most likely to uphold Roe v. Wade.Here's where it gets real hard to keep a straight face. McCain in 2000 ran in the presidential race on a platform where he would not seek to overturn Roe v Wade. (example: Guardian article 15 Feb 2000) It's why National Right to Life was running radio ads against him. Do we forget quickly? Mr. Alcorn worries that the younger evangelicals might be vulnerable to smooth talk, but I'm not sure if he's the one being a little hoodwinked. This is Donald Miller's concern. I agree with him.
Again, I don't need to disagree with Mr. Alcorn on the moral issue of abortion… just questioning his clarity on the politics of it.
ps - Don doesn't think Obama is the Messiah. Neither do I. Check out him poking fun of his campaign e-mails.
I'm already long, so I won't go further into the ways that Obama has pledged to work towards the reduction of the number of abortions, or even his thoughts on variety of other essential life-issues that I believe Christians should care about like poverty and war.
My final disagreement isn't on the topic of abortion. It's the insinuation that those who vote for Obama are trying to be "cool" or be in the majority crowd. Maybe that's the case for some. For me, I'm voting for Obama because of his fundamentally intelligent approach to a wide variety of complicated issues both at home and abroad. Especially abroad, because the President's role has the most direct impact over military and diplomatic issues off our shores. And I follow church planter Alan Hirsch when he mentions that the world opinion is quite toward Obama, and this really does mean something.Well, I reach the end of one of my longest posts hoping I've been gracious, thoughtful, accurate, and loving. We'll see (I'm hope my friends will point out where I haven't). But this is honest to my thoughts right now. I'm a Christian, I believe abortion is part of the moral despair of our society, yet I believe I can consistently vote for Barack Obama.


7 responses to "i'm pro-life. and I'm voting for obama."
This was a good post. I think you conveyed your thoughts with a good amount of clarity and consideration.
Good and thoughtful post. I am glad you responded to the Alcorn one. It is a difficult issue but it has really challenged me to consider what I believe and how I plan to approach (and engage) whomever wins the election next Tuesday.
Good thoughts, although I can't say I agree.
I definitely think there is reason for concern on an issue that is of such great moral importance.
Whether the public agrees it is clear or not, I think we agree it is quite clear that abortion is infanticide.
That we need to reduce its occurrence goes without saying. He is saying, though, as I understand it, that its frequency should be reduced as a marker of progress in other areas, not necessarily because it is a morally wrong action. Thus, his position on the issue does cause me to question my concurrence with his worldview. Reduction is only a great first step.
Likewise, I am greatly concerned at the possibility of the Freedom of Choice Act being passed, as I hope you are. I suspect it would eventually be found unconstitutional, but would mean years of legal battles.
All this said, I cannot bring myself to vote for a pro-abortion candidate (anyone who would want it to remain legal is pro-abortion I have to think), and have promised myself that I never will. As Piper says, abortion is about God. I agree with him in then saying, "I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office."
Thanks for posting this. I was gonna ask you to email it to me if you didn't. I always seem to benefit from your ability to argue articulately and find holes in others' arguments.
This is certainly a touchy issue, and I think you've done a good job. I sense that we're 'raging moderately together.'
I'd agree with most of this post, but the one point neglected in your analysis is Obama's "promise" to NARAL/Planned Parenthood to sign the "Freedom of Choice Act" as one of his first priorities of his administration. For having said to prolifers that he's for more restrictions on late-term abortions, this is a giant step in the opposite direction. I hope he has the discretion to engage the topic of abortion legality, but I'm worried by a lot of his rhetoric ("I don't want my daughters 'punished' with a baby").
I say this all as someone who pulled the lever for BHO (more accurately, filled in the arrow for him).
My comments are obviously a bit late, but I would disagree with your statement that "the President has little or no direct control on abortion in the United States." First, and this isn't directly abortion, but Obama's proxies are already saying they will overturn the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Second, the President controls the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If HHS makes availability of abortion a priority, it will have a direct impact--usually through "family planning" clinics. Third, the President has large control over foreign aid, and Bush has supported prohibiting U.S. foreign aid from going to organizations that promote abortion.
All of these can be influenced to some degree by the Congress, but the newly elected Congress will certainly not be limiting Obama on life issues. The question is whether Obama will govern as the centrist he campaigned as, or if he will move further to the left.
Obviously post-election now, but thanks for the comments. I got a number through e-mail too... can't say I wasn't a little nervous to post on stuff like this, but most comments were helpful.
Justin: Yes, I'd view the embryonic stem cell issue as pretty separate, and am pretty "for" it--even Bush saw this was complicated and went a middle way. I also think that the new discovery this year will probably help make this much less of a concern.
I also agree with the foreign aid thing, but this doesn't have to do with the legality of abortion in the US, which was my subject, really.
I hadn't thought of the President's affect on the HHS. It seems "indirect" as well, but maybe there's more I don't know. How would the HHS have an effect - would they be asked to "encourage more abortions?" Is a planned parenthood counselor under Bush now going to give different advice under Obama? I'm not sure this really changes the ground game. But like I said, I'm curious about more specifics if you got them.
All that said, again I'm gonna agree with you that Obama is still definitely pro-choice and I'm definitely not. I'm still trying to see the effect and motives of a Christian vote more than the issue.
And above someone definitely notes Obama's comments on the Freedom of Choice Act. I am deeply saddened by it... and I assume I'll get involved in some advocacy to have my voice heard on why it shouldn't pass. One question that I don't understand with it, though... the text of the law (I read it) defines viability (obviously a crux of the debate) and seems to strike down only pre-viability abortion laws (i.e. parental notification). Why would it strike down partial-birth or third-trimester abortion laws in states?