Voices: In defense of pro-life single-issue voting

A recent opinion article titled “Voices: Pro-life voting involves more than one issue” questioned the integrity, intelligence and efficacy of those casting votes based exclusively on defending the unborn.

A vital issue for those voting pro-life is the status of those being aborted. When one believes in their heart that a pre-born child is a human being, the concept of pro-life single-issue voting is resolved.

A set of arguments in favor of pro-life single-issue voting

I could argue the pre-born are human beings based on science. When cells are dividing, life is present. When the DNA in those cells is human, human life is present.

I could argue based on United States law. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 grants an embryo or fetus in utero legal status as a human being.

I could argue from personal experience, feeling my son’s foot as he kicked in his mother’s womb, knowing he was a living human being.

But I think Scripture such as Psalm 139:13 and Jeremiah 1:5 should have the final authority on the matter. Even if you disagree with the intent of these verses, you still must deal with John leaping in Elizabeth’s womb (Luke 1:41). The biblical fact of in utero human life justifies single-issue pro-life voting.

Responding to the Voices author

In his initial complaint, the author grumbles that he is tired of hearing about pro-life advocates voting solely on abortion, to which I offer the scriptural injunction against grumbling (Philippians 2:14).

Perhaps, if the author understood the effect of knowing 61 million living human beings have been executed in the United States alone since 1973, he might be less annoyed by their decision to vote in this manner. I advocate a humbler position (Ephesians 4:2).

I can only assume the author does not consider the pre-born to be living human beings. Otherwise, his position of “supporting a woman’s right to be the one to make the choice” would qualify as condoning murder.

I am sorry the author is tired of hearing about those committed to ending mass murder of the unborn. However, the severity of this atrocity, combined with the vast numbers affected, warrants the priority of single-issue pro-life voting.

Honest

The author accuses single-issue pro-life voters of being dishonest. He does so through an order of magnitude false equivalency. Capital punishment and indiscriminate gun ownership are not comparable in either quality or quantity with the killing of tens of millions of innocents. However, by suggesting the equivalency of abortion with war and capital punishment, the author inadvertently has conceded abortion is the taking of human life.

His insulting accusation is unfounded and unproven. He states no evidence of dishonesty. The author has set himself as judge over the beliefs and motives of others, a task none of us are qualified to undertake.

Informed

The author puts words in the mouths of those he calls dumb, saying they don’t care about any other issue.

This ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy with no relevance to the issue at hand. Additionally, it is utterly inappropriate in any civil discourse, let alone a discussion conducted between brothers and sisters in Christ.

Casting your vote based on a candidate’s stance on abortion does not mean you don’t care about other issues. It indicates ending abortion is a top priority; it takes precedence over other concerns, and rightly so. Prioritizing the end of abortion does not preclude other matters of justice (Matthew 23:33).

Effective

In his least tenable claim, the author claims “It doesn’t work” when speaking of single-issue pro-life voting. This claim could not be farther from the truth.

We currently have the lowest abortion rates since Roe v. Wade. States have been passing more restrictive abortion legislation right and left. The number of clinics providing abortion has been reduced in many areas. And much of this is due to the election of pro-life candidates at the state and national levels.

But all that is really beside the point. We are not called to do what is right based on what works but based on God’s will.

The author’s position on abortion is utterly indefensible. If he thinks the pre-born are living human beings, he should stand firm in defense of them. If he believes they are not living human beings, why would he be against abortion as contraception?

Interestingly, Jesus and God are to be found only in his final sentence; it is almost as if his personal discomfort at hearing about single-issue voters is the higher priority.

History

There is a historical precedent for single-issue voting. From 1840 to 1860, many single-issue candidates ran as abolitionists. There was even an abolitionist party. There was a considerable single-issue abolitionist movement. No true abolitionist ever would vote for any candidate who supported slavery.

The purpose here is not to compare abortion to slavery. It is to compare single-issue voting today to that which occurred in 1840. One might wonder if the author would have questioned the integrity, intelligence and efficacy of single-issue abolitionist voters.

Singe-issue voting is more than defensible

Single-issue voting for pro-life candidates is an informed and reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

Voting based solely on a candidate’s position on abortion is an honest action taken by people who sincerely believe the pre-born are living human beings. Single-issue voting on abortion is an effective way to participate in the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and hopefully, the ending of one of the greatest atrocities in human history.

Randy Bradley came to faith in Jesus Christ at the age 42 after spending 12 years chasing false gods. After attending the College of Biblical Studies and Grace School of Theology, he was blessed with the congregation of Mullin First Baptist Church. The views expressed are those solely of the author.