Politics & Policy

Mission Impossible

Basic justice and voting on life issues.

Barack Obama and some of his supporters are trying to court the anti-abortion vote, suggesting that the candidate’s stands on other issues — such as health care, economics, and foreign policy — should outweigh his support for abortion rights.

This suggestion is misguided. Indeed, it is radically unjust to the unborn. By their position on abortion, Obama and Biden have relegated a whole class of human beings to the status of sub-personal objects that may be destroyed for the benefit of others.

#ad#The differences between the two presidential tickets on most issues concern means to the same ends — both candidates want accessible health care, a growing economy, and a peaceful world, but they disagree on which policies will best get us there. By contrast, the difference between the two tickets on abortion is a difference about the ends themselves. One side wants to preserve life, the other access to abortion.

At stake in this debate is the principle of the fundamental equality of every human being. This was the same principle at stake in the 19th century in the slavery debate.

Therefore, it is unjust to vote for, a candidate who supports abortion rights if another candidate does not, or does to a lesser degree — even if one disagrees with the pro-life candidate about other issues. Such voting violates the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If a candidate were in favor of killing philosophy professors, I would expect my fellow citizens to vote against him even if his positions on health care or economics were superior.

Some object that Obama does not actually endorse abortion, because he promises that his economic policies will result in a decrease in the number of abortions. He would prefer that women not have abortions, or at least that there be fewer of them. But

Obama has consistently supported public funding for abortions, and his governmental health-care plan would mandate such funding. Since Obama has been in political office, he has done everything he could possibly do to promote abortion and assist the abortion lobby and industry. On his website, Obama writes: “I have been a consistent champion of reproductive rights and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v.Wade a priority as President.”

Indeed, Obama has received a 100-percent grade for pro-choice voting from NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) and a 0-percent pro-life rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

If a politician in the 19th century took a position on slavery analogous to that of Obama and Biden on abortion, his claim would go something like this: “I do not endorse slavery. I wouldn’t own slaves. I think people should be free not to own slaves, if they wish. But I am pro-choice. I have been a consistent champion of the right to own slaves for the last ten years. And I will make defense of that right a priority in my presidency. Of course, I hope fewer people will feel the need to resort to that choice, and so as president I will put into place economic policies that will reduce the need for slave labor in agriculture and in factories. But, to ensure that slavery remains an option for white men who should, after all, be free to decide how to manage their own affairs, I am in favor of providing subsidies for the purchase of slaves by whites whose farms and factories are at risk because of the high cost of wage labor.”

The central principle of our civilization is that all human beings possess an equal fundamental dignity, and no class of human beings can with justice enslave, use, experiment on, or deliberately kill other innocent human beings for their own purposes. Obama and Biden have rejected that basic principle. McCain and Palin embrace and uphold it.

– Patrick Lee is director of the Institute of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Hillary Ruins the Plan

Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the first in a series of excerpts.  There really was a collusion plot. It really did target our election system. It absolutely sought to usurp our capacity for ... Read More

Another Pop-Culture Christian Loses His Faith

It’s happened again. For the second time in three weeks, a prominent (at least in Evangelical circles) Christian has renounced his faith. In July, it was Josh Harris, a pastor and author of the mega-best-selling purity-culture book I Kissed Dating Goodbye. This month, it’s Hillsong United songwriter and ... Read More

Max Boot’s Dishonesty

Before yesterday, my primary criticism of the Washington Post’s Max Boot was political in nature. As I wrote in a recent book review, I found it regrettable that Boot’s opposition to the president had not prevented him from “succumbing reactively to Trump’s cult of personality, or from making Trump the ... Read More

A Brief History of Election Meddling

Editor’s note: Andrew C. McCarthy’s new book is Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency. This is the second in a series of excerpts. ‘The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Thus spoke President Barack Obama just a couple of weeks before ... Read More

The End of Hong Kong as We Know It

The protests in Hong Kong have been going on for more than four months now, and no matter how the current crisis concludes in the coming days or weeks, it will mark the end of Hong Kong as we know it. The protests started in response to an extradition bill that was proposed by the city’s Beijing-backed ... Read More