A Statement by ACM’s Executive Director, Anthony Horvath, Arguing that One Issue Voting is Acceptable When Life is on the Line
With election day tomorrow there are many people still deliberating on who to vote for. Some people, who may consider themselves pro-life, may be torn by other issues, such as their support for universal health care or ‘social justice,’ which they believe Obama and the Democrats might support. In fact, when asked to vote ‘pro-life’ they might say that they are voting pro-life, because they are voting to give care and comfort for those already living.
Be that as it may, and contrary to many so-called ‘ethicists’ say, there is no moral justification for murdering one person in order to make another person more comfortable. So long as one political party in this country supports abortion on demand, even up to the point where they advocate for late term abortions such as partial birth abortion, and you believe the unborn human is a person worthy of protection, there is simply no way that party can receive a vote.
Note the important assumptions. 1., you believe the unborn human is a person worthy of protection. 2., the political party in question supports killing that person.
Obviously, if you do not accept the first assumption, the second assumption is moot.
Imagine, if you will, that one candidate embodies every single value you support and will further those values in their policies, and have demonstrated that they will, but on one tiny little point, they differ: they believe that Jews or black people should be put into camps and gassed to death and then turned to ash in specially designed ovens.
There is a 99% agreement between you and that candidate on every other issue, but the remaining 1% is not inconsequential, indeed, it is controlling… provided you believe Jews and black people are human persons worthy of our protection.
Most people would agree with this, and on this issue would unapologetically be a ‘one issue’ voter. However, many people believe that the unborn human is also a person worthy of protection, just as they see every other person–black, red, white–as worthy of protection, but for some reason they can’t bring themselves to make that their ‘one issue.’
Why? “I wouldn’t make that choice myself, but I can’t impose my view on others.”
Were we wrong for imposing our views on the Nazis, who believed the Jews were vermin?
Were we wrong for imposing our views on American society, which for decades believed that black people were inferior?
If it is a life, it is a life. We don’t normally refuse to protect life, just because some other people have decided those lives to be unworthy of our protection. The Nazis and American progressives all believed that the ‘unfit’ were as much a burden on society as some women might view the unborn a burden on their bodies, and yet we did not think it appropriate to just leave it to their ‘choice.’
The core question is this: is the unborn child really a child, or not?
If you answer in the affirmative, you must not vote for a candidate who would kill it.
People like Obama and Tammy Baldwin support partial birth abortion, where they deliver most of the baby… up until the head, which they allow just enough to be visible so they can jam a hole into the baby’s skull and sucking out the brain. (Can you imagine any reason why the mother’s life could be in jeopardy any more by delivering the whole baby, except the head?)
While gruesome, it is only one grotesque extension of what happens earlier in a pregnancy. But more important is the reasoning that allows them to support that procedure or any other: based on their reasoning, the state decides when a person is a person.
It should not surprise anyone, then, that other people have decided that the reasoning extends beyond birth, even. (Google ‘after-birth abortion.’) You must understand, there is nothing that magically happens during birth so that one second it is a fetus, which can be destroyed without moral consequence, and then one second later, after it travels down the birth canal, it becomes a baby, worthy of our protection. There is no dramatic difference, which is why people like Peter Singer and Julian Savulescu don’t see any problem with ‘terminating’ a child even after he is born, even up to a year, or two years of age.
In short, if you will not make the preservation of life your one issue while that life is in the womb, there is every indication that in due time life outside the womb–perhaps yours–may be targeted.
It has happened before. Vote wisely.