Is the Democratic party the better option for pro-life voters?

Last updated on: May 9, 2013 at 6:06 am by Faithful Democrats

Is the Democratic party the better option for pro-life voters? 2013-05-09T06:06:49-06:00 Faithful Democrats

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

the economic and social welfare policies the GOP advocates are fundamentally at odds with the kind of measures we would have in place if we were actually serious about ending abortion and caring for the extra children who would be born in its absence.

28 “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

– Matthew 21:28-31 (NIV)

I spent my first 5 or 6 elections (out of the 9 I’ve been old enough to vote in) evaluating candidates principally on their approach to abortion. I was persuaded by John Piper’s argument that even if a pro-life position does not automatically qualify someone for elective office “the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office.” It certainly made my job of studying the candidates’ positions on the full range of policy issues much easier, since I typically could stop with abortion.

But such a single-issue approach is inadequate for three reasons.

First, what other moral failings might equally disqualify a leader from public office? Sacrificing the health (and lives) of children to let some companies skimp on safety inspections and environmental protections in order to give their stockholders slightly higher dividends? Eliminating regulations on lenders to make it easier for them to convince consumers to live beyond their means-in the process mortgaging our children’s future and making it harder to condemn Chinese crackdowns on religious freedom? Abandoning the poor and hungry to the care of already overstretched private charities because top-dollar campaign donors are hungry for a tax break? Stripping funding from state agencies that help the very special needs children that pro-lifers beg expectant parents not to abort? The list could go on and on.

Second, if I believed that the political choice was between a party that tolerated and encouraged what is difficult to see as anything other than the killing of unborn children and one that offered a believable plan for saving their lives, I would have a very hard time not backing the latter option. It’s fine to say that life begins at conception and abortion is evil (and I’d agree with that approach), but the Republican platform offers no credible way of actually saving unborn life. In fact, the economic and social welfare policies the GOP advocates are fundamentally at odds with the kind of measures we would have in place if we were actually serious about ending abortion and caring for the extra children who would be born in its absence.

Third, abortion was commonplace long before it was legalized, and it seems unlikely that a ban on abortion (with the current fiscal policies or especially with policies to the right of those) would be able to stop illegal abortion. Also, how exactly would we prosecute such a ban? Would underground abortion providers’ attempts to escape prosecution lead to shorter paper trails and dangerous gaps in patient care that might lead to two wrongful deaths instead of just one? Would our most fundamental freedoms be secure from a government whose power to detect and punish crime extended to the determination of whether a woman suffering a miscarriage should be comforted or indicted? The stories from Nicaragua, where an abortion ban has resulted in deaths from ectopic pregnancies doctors were scared to treat (lest they be accused of performing abortions instead), certainly give me pause.

It’s probably a good thing–for the sake of symbolism-to have a law on the books saying that abortion is prohibited, but how much political capital are we willing to trade (and how many unborn children are we willing to sacrifice) for the opportunity to pretend that because no one is *supposed* to be having abortions that abortion has been eliminated? Would we rather have a meaningless (and quite temporary) law banning abortion accompanied by a set of policies that result in more people who are determined to get an abortion regardless of the law and that contributes to a higher mortality rate among working- and middle-class children, or would we rather trade the absence of a paper-only abortion ban for a set of policies that reduce the number of abortions and save lives across the board?

I am increasingly convinced that an abortion ban will only work in the context of Democratic economic and social welfare policies. Ironically, the most reliable road to saving unborn life runs through the camp that is most outspoken in its defense of abortion rights. “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” The one who did what the father asked–even after saying the opposite.

Featured Writers

Previous Post

April 22, 2009

Abortion by the Numbers

Next Post

March 20, 2012 President Obama and the Fake 'War on Religion'

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category About Us About Us Action Center Advertise Ask a Theologian Ask a Theologian Blogs Books Campaign Blog Candidate Spotlights Commentary Donate Facebook Featured Writers Fellows Fellows From the Pulpit General Information Hillary Clinton Interfaith Blog Latest Media Center Media Center Media Center MyBlog MyBlog News Newsflash Newsflashes Our Team Reader Blogs RSS Sermon of the Week Shop Social Networking Static Items Support Talking Points Test blogs The Basics Theology Uncategorized YouTube

Select a Month November 2020 October 2020 February 2020 August 2019 July 2018 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 January 2006 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "All things work together for good"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

James Peter Paul John