The Upper Register Blog

Many Bible-believing Christians believe it would be a sin to vote for Obama because of his strong pro-choice position. “Don’t bloody your hands by casting a vote for Obama” they cry. Even noted Christian philosophers argue that to vote for Obama would be to engage in “material cooperation” with mass murder. I don’t think I need to post more links to prove that this overwrought rhetoric is rife on the web. 

I understand the strong biblical convictions that lie behind this way of thinking. I fully sympathize with the passion for justice that animates this concern. I am pro-life and view abortion as a grave moral evil.

However, I just hope that those of you who think voting for Obama is a sin are consistent. I trust that you will have the courage of your convictions and do the following:

(1) You will not vote for John McCain, since he (a) supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, which would kill just as many millions, and (b) is opposed to a federal ban on abortion (he thinks the states should be allowed to decide).

(2) In future elections, you will not vote for any candidate who has adopted a stance similar to McCain’s.

(3) In the still farther future - who knows, 20, 30, 40 years from now? - when the Supreme Court concludes that stare decisis means that Roe v. Wade is settled law and no longer open for re-consideration, and there is no viable political party that seriously intends to implement a federal ban on abortions, you will withdraw from electoral politics and stop voting altogether.

(4) You will seriously ponder the arguments in favor of lawful killing in defense of the innocent and explain to the rest of us why you find those arguments to be morally repugnant. I am not accusing you of holding this extreme position either explicitly or implicitly, but in view of your overwrought rhetoric, you have an obligation to give us a more cogent explanation for why your rhetoric does not, should not, and cannot lead to such a violent conclusion. It won’t do to merely claim that you disagree with it.

(5) You will advocate that members of your churches who voted for either Obama or McCain be subjected to church discipline for “material cooperation with evil.”

Even if McCain is elected, he would probably not be able to get justices on the Supreme Court who are prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade. He may be able to get a few more moderate conservative justices like Roberts and Alito, but not extremists like Scalia. In a best case scenario, if he does succeed in getting a few more Scalias on the court, and Roe is overturned, McCain has said he is opposed to a federal ban on abortion and merely wants to “de-federalize” the issue, i.e., to allow each state to decide. Add to that his stance on embryonic stem cell research, and “the mass murder of millions of innocent human beings” will continue under a McCain administration!

So, you who believe that those who vote for Obama are getting blood on their hands, can you explain to us why your vote for McCain leaves you morally pristine?

As Christians we all have to live and vote in the real world and that involves making pragmatic decisions that don’t always align perfectly with our theoretical ideals. None of us can cast a morally pure vote. We vote for the candidate we think is best suited to lead our country at this particular junction in history and to deal with the issues that seem to us to have the greatest moment. Perhaps you think abortion is the number one problem facing our country right now. I think you’re wrong, and we can agree to disagree on that. But unless you have the courage of your convictions and are willing to be consistent, then I would respectfully request that you tone down the rhetoric a tad.

Thanks.

I heard Douglas Kmiec today on Larry Mantle’s Air Talk discussing his new book Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Questions about Barack Obama. Douglas Kmiec is a Roman Catholic, a Republican (he worked in the Reagan administration), and a con-law professor at Pepperdine. He is famous for having endorsed Obama and for being denied communion by a young priest soon thereafter (but not permanently - Cardinal Roger Mahoney corrected the priest’s error).

Obviously, in view of the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the serious moral considerations involved in voting for pro-choice politicians, Kmiec has had to wrestle with the question, “Can a Catholic vote for Obama?” He answers, “Yes,” because if given a choice between an administration that would focus its anti-abortion efforts merely on the unlikely hope of overturning Roe v. Wade (which would not reduce abortions), and an administration that would support measures that could actually reduce abortions, the choice is easy.

Here is how he puts it in a recent interview with the New York Times:

There is a widespread misconception that overturning Roe is the only way to be pro-life. In fact, overturning Roe simply returns the matter to the states, which in their individual legislative determinations could then be entirely pro-abortion. I doubt that many of our non-legally-trained pro-life friends fully grasp the limited effect of overturning Roe.

Secondly, pundits like to toss about the notion that the future of Roe depends on one vote, the mythical fifth vote to overturn the decision. There are serious problems with this assumption: first, Republicans have failed to achieve reversal in the five previous times they asked the court for it; and second, it is far from certain that only one additional vote is needed to reverse the decision in light of the principles of stare decisis by which a decided case ought not to be disturbed. Only Justices Thomas and Scalia have written and joined dissenting opinions suggesting the appropriateness of overturning Roe …

Senator Obama is articulating policies that permit faithful Catholics to follow the church’s admonition that we continue to explore ways to give greater protection to human life.

Consider the choices: A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion.   

I like what this reviewer said on Amazon:

So polarized are our politics and our churches these days that it takes a Republican praising the Democratic candidate in order to create enough interest in the hidden truth beneath the 35-year struggle over abortion. Prof Doug Kmiec has written a deeply thoughtful, well-reasoned discussion of why the Democratic approach to solving the abortion problem should appeal to Catholics of all ideological stripes.

The extremists on both ends of the rope have profited handsomely over the years from playing up the pro-choice vs anti-abortion debate, to the frustration of most of the rest of us. The rarely acknowledged dirty little secret is that the vast majority of Catholics and other people of faith believe simultaneously in both positions: that the ideal would be to bring every baby into the world, but that there are grave unintended consequences from trying to criminalize the decision.

Conservatives love to talk about the 43 million abortions since Roe-v-Wade, but they never acknowledge the 43 million that came before 1973–when abortion was largely illegal. In other words, illegality has been tried before, and found to be sorely wanting as a strategy to fix the problem. Add on top of that the fact that abortions rose substantially under Reagan and the first Bush, and then fell steeply under President Clinton. Now the data shows convincingly that abortion rates have stagnated under President Bush.

Prof Kmiec points out that the punishmentalists have clearly been betting on the wrong horse, content to take a chance that abortion might possibly be outlawed sometime in the very distant future, rather than supporting a Democratic position with a proven track record of abortion reduction in the here-and-now. Reconciliation being a cardinal principle of Catholicism, Dr Kmiec makes a convincing case that supporting an Obama presidency is the more rewarding way to address the tragedy of abortion for anyone who has seriously grappled with this problem in all its complexity.

Also, here is a nice excerpt from the book on Beliefnet in which Kmiec addresses the slander that by voting against the Illinois Born Alive Act Obama is in favor of killing newborn babies.

Ben Witherington has some good advice for evangelicals on how to decide this November. He says, Don’t be a one-issue voter. Rather, prioritize what you think are the most crucial issues facing the nation at this particular juncture in history and evaluate the candidates based on those issues. I don’t know if Witherington would agree, but for me, with pressing issues like the future role of American troops in Iraq, the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the possibility of a nuclear Iran, as well as the most recent developments in the financial crisis, we do not have the luxury of voting solely on the basis of a candidate’s stance on abortion or other social issues. I understand the deep biblical conviction that drives some to this position, but it is ultimately a zeal that is not according to knowledge. The values of the kingdom of God are eschatological and heavenly, and cannot be so simply translated into the earthly transitory realm of public policy and civil law. To vote solely on the basis of a single-minded zeal to implement heaven on earth while overlooking the urgent, temporal problems of the city of man is not only to neglect the common grace arena but is, ironically, to work for its premature destruction. 

In light of my previous post, many of my readers will object, “But how can you as a conservative Christian support a pro-choice candidate?” I can because, to me, the issue of abortion doesn’t matter at this particular juncture in history. Roe v. Wade is not going to be reversed. Even if it were, the issue would devolve to the states, and the blue states would legalize it and the red states would bar it. And even the states that barred it would surely not criminalize it to the point of treating abortionists or women who have abortions as murderers. Women who live in red states and who want an abortion will just travel to a blue state and get one. So even if Roe v. Wade were reversed — the great holy grail of the pro-life movement! — nothing would substantially change.

But wouldn’t Obama nominate liberal judges to fill the next SCOTUS vacancy? Probably. But so what? All the key debates over abortion that fall short of revoking Roe v. Wade — issues like parental consent, federal funding, partial birth abortions, etc. — have either been decided already or will be decided soon under the Roberts court. The abortion issue as a political battle is nearly over. At this stage in the game, the only weapons we have left as Christians are — gasp! — non-legislative and non-coercive. The best way to make a difference is to engage in personal evangelism, to get involved in real relationships with people, to pray that God would change people’s hearts, and to continue our efforts at offering counseling and adoption services. It’s ultimately a cultural issue, and the culture won’t be changed by legislation or by getting more conservative judges. I think the Lord is glad that the political sword is proving ineffective. Perhaps we’ll be more inclined to pick up that other sword we’ve locked away in the cabinet and allowed to get rusty — the sword of the Spirit.

So, for me, the issue of abortion is irrelevant in deciding who to vote for in 2008. The defining issues of our time are in the area of foreign policy: the struggle against global jihad, planning our exit strategy from Iraq, and nuclear proliferation in Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. These are the sorts of issues the next president can affect. The chances he or she will change anybody’s mind about abortion are slim and none.