This is a portion of an article by Gerard V. Bradley who is Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Witherspoon Institute, where he is the Director of the Center on Religion and the Constitution. Professor Bradley sits on the editorial board of Public Discourse.
Read it and tell me what you think
Recent debates have centered on the question of when an otherwise "pro-life" voter is morally justified in voting for a "pro-choice" candidate. The question amounts to asking when is it fair--that is, just--to vote for a "pro-choice" candidate. The answer depends on applying the Golden Rule.
Let me explain. The "pro-life" position consists, basically, of these two propositions. First, that people begin at conception, so that to kill anyone from conception onwards is to kill a human person. Second, that it is wrong--morally wrong--to intentionally kill any innocent person. Neither proposition is about religious faith. No one needs religious faith to see and to say that both of these propositions are true. You can figure out when people begin, for example, by reflecting philosophically on scientific facts about human reproduction and development. And you can figure out that killing is wrong by reflecting upon the basic principles of justice-the natural law-which, at least according to Saint Paul, is inscribed upon your heart. Or you can consult almost any secular or religious moral code, or almost any society's civil law-including our own.
It won't do to say that one is "pro-life" because one views abortion with profound misgivings, or because one regrets that so many abortions occur and that the law should work to make it more rare, or because abortion is, in some sense, wrong and evil. Abortion is all these things. But abortion is much more than all these things. In an abortion someone who has the same right not to be killed that everyone else has, is killed. So abortion isn't just an unfortunate event, but it is morally wrong because it deprives a human person of his right to life-and thus we need to enact laws that protect the right to life for all people. This is the "pro-life" position I have in mind in asking under what circumstances is the "pro-life" voter morally justified in voting for a "pro-choice" candidate.
What about the "pro-choice" position? Is it really the case that someone who is "personally" "pro-life" could coherently be politically "pro-choice"? Is it really the same thing as being "pro-abortion"? Well, it is true that a "pro-choice" candidate for public office may never advise any particular women to have an abortion. The "pro-choice" candidate may even find abortion extremely distasteful and, perhaps, abhorrent. But the surgical procedure we call abortion is not the only subject matter of the "pro-choice" position. "Pro-choice" is also, and it is necessarily, a position about what public policies and laws we should have about abortion--specifically, whether abortion should be something women are free to choose, or not. "Pro-choice" is one answer to that policy inquiry. It is the answer that the legal protections which protect most of us from being killed should not protect all of us from being killed. Some people--the unborn--are to be exposed to deadly violence without legal aid or redress. And, so, just as ante-bellum Americans who refused to own slaves were nonetheless correctly called "pro-slavery"--because they affirmed the legal right of others to do so--Americans who today affirm the legal right of a women to have an abortion could correctly be called "pro-abortion," even if they judge abortion an option unworthy of their own choice.
This is the "pro-choice" position I have in mind in seeking to answer the question previously posed. This "pro-choice" position amounts to a grave injustice, one which "pro-choice" candidates necessarily embrace, support, and choose; it is precisely what being "pro-choice," at a minimum, actually means. Anyone who votes for a "pro-choice" candidate becomes morally responsible for this grave injustice. The "pro-life" voter who votes for a "pro-choice" candidate materially--that is, in fact and as a matter of foreseeable effect--cooperates in sustaining this country's radically defective legal structure about abortion. Take the case of presidential elections. Voting for a "pro-choice" candidate helps him to win the presidency, and helping him to win the presidency is, perforce, to help him make his declared "pro-choice" policies a reality (or, to the extent such policies are in place, to help him to block efforts to repeal them). The "pro-life" voter who votes for a "pro-choice" candidate knowingly declines to do what he or she can do to legally protect the unborn from being killed-namely, to vote for a "pro-life" candidate (if one is running).
Can I get an amen? If you are a Christian and this makes you mad, why?
8 comments:
Excellent information Jamie. It is possible that whomever becomes president on November 4th will have the opportunity to appoint three supreme court justices. This is an extremely serious matter. Do we want Barak Obama to have the chance to appoint these justices? He has stated, and this can be verified, that he will choose justices on the basis of whether they have the empathy to relate to an unwed mother, whether they can empathize with what it is like to be black, poor, etc. These are not proper criteria for selecting a supreme court justice even though I feel that empathy for the above mentioned is important for everyone.I believe that justices should be chosen upon the basis of exceptional wisdom and the ability to interpret the constitution and apply the rule of law! Should justices not rule without prejudice or bias in any way? I firmly believe that Obama will make it easier for a woman (or girl) to have an abortion by signing the freedom of choice act and he will make it virtually impossible to ever restrict abortion or overturn Roe v. Wade by his appointment of justices to the supreme court. I love and respect my Democratic party friends, but there is a difference in pro choice and pro life candidates.
Great point bowmanmj!
By the way your Dad is my favorite preacher.
Thanks Tony. I love you brother!
i find it hypocritical that we have had a pro-lifer in the president seat for 8 years and eight years of nothing has changed with Roe V Wade. So therefore saying that voting for a pro-choice "canidate" does not mean that anything will change one way or the other. Also, there is a thing called checks and balances, it has to go through many things before it can become a ruling.
Also, just because you make it illegal does not mean you put an end to the practice. Coat Hangers anyone.
Another point, you made about it being a tax payer who would be paying for the abortion, who pays for the child when the mother dosen't want it.
In Conclusion, I believe that subject matter like gay marriage and abortion are personal value issues that are blown way out of proportion, but what we (christians) forget about is that there is also a call for us to show compassion for a neighbor, and help those who are hungry and thirst.
Sooo...who must weigh everything not just two issues.
Thanks for the comments "anonymous".
If you will intelligently look at the issue of abortion. Pro life legislation since 1990 thru Bill Clinton and George Bush has dropped abortion stats by 14%. If you save one life it is worth it. To me as a Born again Christian it does anyway.
So your statement "nothing has changed is very off base an inaccurate"
You said "who pays for the child when the mother doesn't want it" people will adopt. This is not an excuse to kill a fetus. At least, to me as a born again Christian it doesn't anyway.
My mother worked three jobs as a single mother. This was during the 70's when Carter almost destroyed our economy remember. I can only remember our family using food stamps for a short period of time. My mother worked and supported our family. I am a product of Free lunch though and some very generous class mates that would by me some chocolate milk from time to time. I am glad my mom didn't abort me because times were hard..
There is no excuse for abortion. Please don't try to justify it to me. Save that for people who think like you do and will agree with you.
You also said, "we blow gay marriage and abortion way out of proportion" that is a terrible statement.
sounds like you are in favor of abortion and gay marriage-- that is fine with me --i am not.
I don't want to pay for other peoples abortions because they have sex and use it for birth control. (Most abortions are for this reason)
I also don't want marriage to be redefined from the Bible ideal of marriage. As a born again Christian I have a strong conviction to live by Biblical standards.
I know Rep. use these two issues to get votes. I am not stupid. I also know Demo. are backed by Planned Parenthood and Gay lobbyist. They give millions of dollars to get legislation passed. So both parties are hypocritical.
I am very compassionate to my neighbors- come ask them. You make the statement for the poor. I have seen poverty in the Philippines. We don't have to much poverty in USA. Our poor here have cell phones, Direct TV ....etc..
you said, "it seems as if we forget about the poor"
If you can find a poor family in Alexander County let me know. I will personally go help them out and you can go with me.
Remember i work with the citizens of Alexander County everyday. I deal with benevolence issues every day as Pastor of ETBC. The Dems and Rep. both pander to the poor and middle class. Neither party is compassionate. i don't rely on the Gov. to help my neighbor. I try to help them myself. I know our Church does.
I may be wrong but it sounds like you are in the "tank" for Democrats. I can put my hand on my Bible and say i am not in the tank for either.
I didn't vote a straight party ticket this year. Did you?
By the way , i would appreciate it if you would use your name.
Thanks for your comments and comment again.
Also on the topic of abortion, the pro-lifer we have in the presidential seat at the moment has worked with the issue of abortion. For example, President Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. This act represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973. I think that it is inaccurate to say that the President changed nothing on the issue of abortion.
"Also, just because you make it illegal does not mean you put an end to the practice. Coat Hangers anyone." Yes, there will still be those who try but wouldn't it be better to have a President who at least tried to ban it rather than a President who thought that it's just going to happen anyways so why try to take action against it? Aleaxander Hamilton stated "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything," so I think a President should take a stand on the issue even though it may not eliminate it 100%. The stand I am talking about is a pro-life stand. I know that Senator Obama has stated that, if elected, the first item he would sign would be the freedom of choice act--making it easier for women (or a girl) to have an abortion. Therefore, he has made his stand, as a pro-choice candidate.
Like Jamie stated, there is no excuse for abortion and my views on the subject will not be changed. As Ronald Reagan said "I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."
A Campbell-I liked you comments!! Thanks for standing up for the unborn!
Anonymous-Your whole point about checks and balances pretty much explains why Bush can't end abortion by himself. But, even if a single president can't change everything, I will support candidates who choose life over death. I for one would much rather my tax dollars go to take care of living children than be used to kill them. I agree with Jamie about the compassion issue-most people in our church would gladly help anyone in need-most of us do that now. Point us in the right direction and we will feed any hungry in Alexander county; actually many people are looking for those to help now. We can stand against wrong and still help the needy around us-it is not an "either--or" situation. To repeat earlier comments, you can try to justify your position all you want to make yourself feel better, but your position is still wrong. I hate to say that and you may be someone that I know and love.The church cannot compromise truth to make people feel better. Are there any perfect candidates NO!! But we can choose someone who is closest to our values. If Barak Obama's platform is the one that matches your values-go for it. I will not be with you.
Campbell and Bowmanmj,
You both make some very good points. I think the majority of Christians feel this way as well
Post a Comment