In Defense of Single Issue Voting (aka Valuing the Unborn) Part 1

There is small but growing chorus of voices saying that single issue voting is an unthinking reflex, perhaps even "unbiblical" (e.g. Rich Cizik). Others claim that one can be Pro-Life and Pro-Obama (e.g. Brian McLaren). I have met and respect both of these men, but in their zeal to expand the seats at the evangelical issue table, I do fear they are in danger of recklessly tossing the high-chair to the side in frustration because a hungry baby keeps screaming.

Choosing among imperfect candidates, parties, and policies always requires acts of prioritization. What men like McLaren (and to a much lesser degree, Cizik) imply is that there is an equivalence of "life" issues and as long you trade on a one-for-one basis, you too can cast an equally moral vote for Obama. I disagree for a number of reasons, and in this series will seek to preserve a place at the table for the unborn.

In his 1999 essay "The Failure of War" Wendell Berry highlights the hypocrisy of violence that is indeed a real problem in our politics: "Some of us are against capital punishment but for abortion. Some of us are against abortion but for capital punishment. Most of us, whatever our stand on preserving the lives of the thoughtlessly conceived unborn, thoughtlessly participate in an economy that steals from all the unborn."

Berry's call is to true consistency and I join that call (even as a I deal with the reality of my own hypocrisies), but voting is a binary choice where the ideal is never available. As noted above, I do not advocate an "either way is fine" approach given this state of affairs, however.

I will turn to the weighing of factors in later posts, but I highlight the essay because in 2003, after no doubt being harangued by his "liberal" admirers, the author penned a post-script specifically on the value of the unborn. As with most things, when Wendell Berry speaks we are wise to listen:

The issue of abortion, so far as I understand it, involves two questions: Is it killing? And what is killed?

It is killing of course. To kill is the express purpose of the procedure. What is killed is usually described by apologists as "a fetus," as if that term names a distinct kind or species of being. But what this being might be, if it is not a human being, is not clear. Generally, pregnant women have thought and spoken of the beings in their wombs as "babies." The attempt to make a categorical distinction between a baby living in the womb and a baby living in the world is as tenuous as would be an attempt to make such a distinction between a living child and a living adult. No living creature is "viable" independently of an enveloping life-support system.

If the creature in the womb is a living human being, and so far also an innocent one, then it is wrong to treat it as an enemy. If we are worried about the effects of treating fellow humans as enemies or enemies of society eligible to be killed, how do we justify treating an innocent fellow human as an enemy-in-the-womb?

Citizenship Papers, p. 30.

I do not assert that abortion is the "only" moral issue worthy of consideration, and I will admit that the Illinois Senator may have a superior position on some other counts (again we will address prioritization in later posts); however, I must wonder why if Obama is willing to talk to our enemies abroad is he not also willing to listen to silent pleas of those yet unborn in America?