Part I: The Evil We Face
It may seem hyperbolic to describe the actions of a particular politician as evil. After all, politics has come to be a world in which there is no right and wrong, only better or worse. How can we expect any particular politician to conform exactly to what we would like? Indeed, we ourselves do not always exactly conform to our own standards, let alone those of others. Isn't it rather presumptuous to expect a politician to live up to ours?
The argument presented above is valid – to a point. No one, not us and not our favorite politician, is perfect. Every Christian should recognize that, as Romans 3:23 states, “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” We strive for perfection, but absolute perfection in everything we do or have done is unachievable. Further, an excellent case can be made that we should give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Given that imperfection is inevitable, shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt and assume that those who do what we consider to be wrong are merely misled, not evil?
As a general rule, yes, we certainly should allow the benefit of the doubt. When a politician fails to align himself exactly with what we see as the correct path we should, on most issues, allow that it is a point of disagreement but not a moral issue. There are, however, some issues that transcend political discussion. Chief among these is abortion.
The central issue in the debate over abortion is the status of the unborn. If, as is argued here, the unborn child is alive and human it is absolutely unacceptable to end the life of that unborn child. In fact, the Christian should have little doubt that the action of taking an innocent life is unequivocally evil: confirmation can be found throughout the Bible, but particularly in Galatians 5:19-21, which lists murder among a number of works of the flesh “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, …murders, …revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” We need be in no doubt that murder is not something on which one can disagree. It is always evil beyond any shadow of a doubt.
The obvious next question concerns how abortion fits into the picture. Certainly murder is evil, but has it actually been established that abortion is murder? Certainly if the child is alive the situation is clear, but isn't the beginning of life a vague issue, hardly one that can be addressed with such certainty that one can label those who hold an opposing view evil? In brief, no, the beginning of life is not a vague issue. By merely making the reasonable assumption that only indicators which are used to mark the continuation of life should be used to mark the beginning of life, one can find a counterexample to any criteria one finds to mark the beginning of life, except the presence of a complete and unique set of DNA. For example, if, as some do, one uses the ability to feel pain or the presence of brain function to mark the beginning of life one could present the case of a coma patient as a counterexample: the patient is unable to feel pain and in some instances coma patients have been known to have a flat brainwave – no brain function – and recover. Few would argue that the patient ceased to be alive or ceased to be human during the period in which they were in a coma, therefore neither the ability to feel pain nor the presence of brain function is used as the ultimate marker of the continuation of life. By the simple rule of thumb established above neither criteria should be used to mark the beginning of life. Any other indicator one could use, besides the presence of a complete and unique set of DNA, meets the same problem. In essence, to argue that the child in the womb is not a person we would be forced to redefine what life is and how we distinguish life from non-life, not just in humans, but also in the world around us (for example, a stone is distinguished from a frog primarily because the later possess all information necessary for life, and thus the characteristics of an information-carrier, while the former does not). Life must begin at conception, therefore abortion is murder, and it follows that abortion is evil.
With that established, it remains to bring the generalized argument about the morality of abortion down to the specific positions of each candidate. Where do Obama and Romney really stand? In rhetoric they would appear to hold quite distant positions on the issue. Obama represents interests who wish to expand access to abortion massively, while Romney, in the rare instances when he does address the issue, speaks disapprovingly of it and is supported by a number of pro-life groups.
Few dispute Obama's pro-abortion credentials. He has been among the most pro-abortion members of the US government and, as an Illinois state senator, even voted against a bill protecting survivors of abortions. By his own admission he is pro-choice, and little more needs to be said. He supports abortion.
On the other hand, Romney's position is not as clear. Certainly he identifies himself as pro-life and has the endorsement of a number of pro-life groups, but there is reason to be more than skeptical of his claims. His past record on abortion is equivocal. At times he has enthusiastically and aggressively supported it, for example, during the race for Ted Kennedy's senate seat. At other times in the past he specifically rejected the pro-choice label. Despite that fact, he sought to provide public funding for abortions in Massachusetts, something even Obama has been incapable of achieving, forced hospitals to provide abortifacients, donated to pro-abortion organizations, and made far-reaching promises that he would "protect and preserve" legalized abortion. It seems clear that, despite certain vacillations, he was pro-abortion in the past. The issue is complicated by the fact that he claims to have experienced an epiphany, when he realized that abortion was evil and became pro-life. With that in mind, this argument will ignore his past actions as regards abortion. In the interests of giving the benefit of the doubt his past actions furthering abortion will not be considered, nor will his statements promising to defend abortion. Only his present publicly stated beliefs will be taken into account.
As a general rule, yes, we certainly should allow the benefit of the doubt. When a politician fails to align himself exactly with what we see as the correct path we should, on most issues, allow that it is a point of disagreement but not a moral issue. There are, however, some issues that transcend political discussion. Chief among these is abortion.
The central issue in the debate over abortion is the status of the unborn. If, as is argued here, the unborn child is alive and human it is absolutely unacceptable to end the life of that unborn child. In fact, the Christian should have little doubt that the action of taking an innocent life is unequivocally evil: confirmation can be found throughout the Bible, but particularly in Galatians 5:19-21, which lists murder among a number of works of the flesh “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, …murders, …revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” We need be in no doubt that murder is not something on which one can disagree. It is always evil beyond any shadow of a doubt.
The obvious next question concerns how abortion fits into the picture. Certainly murder is evil, but has it actually been established that abortion is murder? Certainly if the child is alive the situation is clear, but isn't the beginning of life a vague issue, hardly one that can be addressed with such certainty that one can label those who hold an opposing view evil? In brief, no, the beginning of life is not a vague issue. By merely making the reasonable assumption that only indicators which are used to mark the continuation of life should be used to mark the beginning of life, one can find a counterexample to any criteria one finds to mark the beginning of life, except the presence of a complete and unique set of DNA. For example, if, as some do, one uses the ability to feel pain or the presence of brain function to mark the beginning of life one could present the case of a coma patient as a counterexample: the patient is unable to feel pain and in some instances coma patients have been known to have a flat brainwave – no brain function – and recover. Few would argue that the patient ceased to be alive or ceased to be human during the period in which they were in a coma, therefore neither the ability to feel pain nor the presence of brain function is used as the ultimate marker of the continuation of life. By the simple rule of thumb established above neither criteria should be used to mark the beginning of life. Any other indicator one could use, besides the presence of a complete and unique set of DNA, meets the same problem. In essence, to argue that the child in the womb is not a person we would be forced to redefine what life is and how we distinguish life from non-life, not just in humans, but also in the world around us (for example, a stone is distinguished from a frog primarily because the later possess all information necessary for life, and thus the characteristics of an information-carrier, while the former does not). Life must begin at conception, therefore abortion is murder, and it follows that abortion is evil.
Part II: Where They Stand
With that established, it remains to bring the generalized argument about the morality of abortion down to the specific positions of each candidate. Where do Obama and Romney really stand? In rhetoric they would appear to hold quite distant positions on the issue. Obama represents interests who wish to expand access to abortion massively, while Romney, in the rare instances when he does address the issue, speaks disapprovingly of it and is supported by a number of pro-life groups.
Few dispute Obama's pro-abortion credentials. He has been among the most pro-abortion members of the US government and, as an Illinois state senator, even voted against a bill protecting survivors of abortions. By his own admission he is pro-choice, and little more needs to be said. He supports abortion.
On the other hand, Romney's position is not as clear. Certainly he identifies himself as pro-life and has the endorsement of a number of pro-life groups, but there is reason to be more than skeptical of his claims. His past record on abortion is equivocal. At times he has enthusiastically and aggressively supported it, for example, during the race for Ted Kennedy's senate seat. At other times in the past he specifically rejected the pro-choice label. Despite that fact, he sought to provide public funding for abortions in Massachusetts, something even Obama has been incapable of achieving, forced hospitals to provide abortifacients, donated to pro-abortion organizations, and made far-reaching promises that he would "protect and preserve" legalized abortion. It seems clear that, despite certain vacillations, he was pro-abortion in the past. The issue is complicated by the fact that he claims to have experienced an epiphany, when he realized that abortion was evil and became pro-life. With that in mind, this argument will ignore his past actions as regards abortion. In the interests of giving the benefit of the doubt his past actions furthering abortion will not be considered, nor will his statements promising to defend abortion. Only his present publicly stated beliefs will be taken into account.
Romney identifies himself as pro-life. His official position is that abortion should be legal only in cases of “rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother,” (a position he and his campaign have stated repeatedly) and that the federal government should not be involved in regulating or banning abortion. This position has gained him the endorsement of a number of pro-life groups and politicians, along with the support of most pro-life voters. Unfortunately, it fails in several major ways. First, it assumes that abortion can be justified in cases of rape and incest. No case can be made for this position if one claims to believe what Romney does – that is, that life begins at conception. While a pregnancy resulting from either scenario can indeed be traumatic, it doesn't change the status of the child. It is a person. An unborn child should not be killed because of his father's crimes any more than any other child should. Taking an innocent life is murder, thus evil, no matter how unpleasant not taking that life would be. Romney supports taking innocent life in certain situations, therefore he supports evil. Further, he supports abortions in cases when the health – not life – of the mother is in danger. Again, one cannot simply take an innocent life because it would be unpleasant and inconvenient not to, and the error is compounded by the fact that the landmark Supreme Court case allowing abortion, Roe v. Wade, used a similar argument based in the health of the mother to do so. Finally, Romney, by his own admission, would oppose efforts at the federal level to end abortion. The effect of his presidency would be a continuation of abortion, thus a continuation of evil.
In short, while Obama is almost certainly more pro-abortion than Romney, neither candidate is pro-life. Both can therefore be said to support abortion, which, as established above, is murder, therefore both support evil and both seek office in part in order to do evil, that is, continue abortion.
Given that both candidates are pro-abortion, at least to some degree, how should a Christian vote? In this section we will lay out a general rule for Christian voters, using, in part, the facts established above, along with others which are generally obvious upon reflection. For the sake of simplicity these will be presented as a set of eight numbered axioms. Take a moment to convince yourself that you do, in fact, agree with these - they are, on the whole, not esoteric and should be obvious to the vast majority of people, particularly Christians.
This argument does not leave room for exceptions. A candidate who supports brutal murder of helpless innocents in only a few cases should be unacceptable to a Christian voter just as a candidate who supports brutal murder of helpless innocents in all cases should be. Further, it does not leave room to argue that we should “do evil that good may come,” just as the Bible rejects the same argument in Romans 3:8: “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say) 'Let us do evil that good may come?' Their condemnation is just.” There is no room to equivocate. We must not do evil, therefore we have a sacred duty not to vote for any pro-abortion candidate, whatever the alternative and whatever the consequences. Since both Obama and Romney are pro-abortion, neither should be an acceptable choice for a Christian.
Part III: How Should We Then Vote?
Given that both candidates are pro-abortion, at least to some degree, how should a Christian vote? In this section we will lay out a general rule for Christian voters, using, in part, the facts established above, along with others which are generally obvious upon reflection. For the sake of simplicity these will be presented as a set of eight numbered axioms. Take a moment to convince yourself that you do, in fact, agree with these - they are, on the whole, not esoteric and should be obvious to the vast majority of people, particularly Christians.
- A Christian should not knowingly do evil
- Murder is always evil
- Abortion is murder
- Support for known evil is evil
- Given 2-4, support for abortion is evil
- A vote is support for a particular candidate's candidacy
- Support for a candidacy is support for a candidate's desire to take office
- The desire to gain greater power to do evil is evil
This argument does not leave room for exceptions. A candidate who supports brutal murder of helpless innocents in only a few cases should be unacceptable to a Christian voter just as a candidate who supports brutal murder of helpless innocents in all cases should be. Further, it does not leave room to argue that we should “do evil that good may come,” just as the Bible rejects the same argument in Romans 3:8: “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say) 'Let us do evil that good may come?' Their condemnation is just.” There is no room to equivocate. We must not do evil, therefore we have a sacred duty not to vote for any pro-abortion candidate, whatever the alternative and whatever the consequences. Since both Obama and Romney are pro-abortion, neither should be an acceptable choice for a Christian.
For a new birth of freedom!
No comments:
Post a Comment