Why I Won't Vote for a Pro-Choice Candidate

Why I won't Vote for a Pro-Choice Candidate

Article posted by Clark Bates
February 2, 2016

Last year, in my state election, I was faced with a dilemma.  Neither candidate running for a particular office was pro-life.  I was faced with the quandary, "Do I vote for someone who doesn't believe all life to be sacred, but closely upholds my personal values elsewhere; or do I just not vote?"  It was a difficult choice because I was raised to believe in the important right and responsibility of voting, but after some deliberation I came to my decision: I won't vote for anyone that is pro-choice. 

Does that seem surprising to you?  Does it shock or anger you?  Perhaps you're thinking that I'm close-minded considering the litany of other "more important" matters (i.e. the economy, poverty, foreign relations...).  But before you prepare the kindling to have me burned, allow me to explain my point.  I don't necessarily want to turn this discussion into a political tirade.  What I want to speak to is the philosophical importance of believing in the sanctity of life and why we should consider it to be a fundamental virtue of anyone seeking to lead our nation.

It should be considered that the nation as a whole is made up of people; all of whom expect and deserve respect and consideration.  Inherent within every human being is the sanctity of life.  Now you might ask, "What makes human life so sacred?"  If I were answering from a naturalistic standpoint, I'd have to say nothing, except perhaps our unique ability to contribute to the betterment of the world even in spite of the damage we can cause.  But from a Christian standpoint, what makes all humanity sacred is the biblical truth that we are made "in the image of God."  Whether you regard the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 to be historical or metaphorical, the text states that both male and female were fashioned in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27) and this is only said of human beings.

All of the Hebrew moral code derived from this understanding.  From the commandment to not murder (Ex. 20:13) to the guidelines behind retribution for accidental death and bodily harm, the overarching biblical message is that mankind is unique among creation and deserves unique considerations.  However, even without seeking a biblical reason for the sanctity of human life, it can be said that the value one places on human life directly affects all other moral judgments.  From a naturalistic perspective, an embryo or fetus may just be a clump of cells (even though this is not a position maintained by any current embryology textbook), therefore not a human life and of no protectable value.  Another argument that often follows a pro-choice position is that of pragmatic value.  In other words, a fetus serves no functional purpose and subsequently need not be valued.

Understandably, these are not the only two lines of reasoning within the pro-choice sphere but they are consistent ones.  If I adopt such a viewpoint, that various aspects of life are not sacred, a door is opened into all facets of my worldview.  As we have seen in history, very little prevents humanity from reasoning that certain ethnicities, handicaps, or ages are not to be valued, and therefore may be eliminated when necessary.  It would not be difficult to justify unethical business practices towards a populace if I can deem them "of less value" than myself, or to permit various forms of "minor" oppression if it is directed at the "lesser".

I am not trying to argue that anyone who is pro-choice believes this way, or that they would necessarily become Hitler-like despots, but what I am saying is that a philosophical worldview that places one portion of humanity into a "lesser" category than another is built upon the foundations of potentially great atrocity.  We are a nation "Of the people, by the people, and for the people," All the people.  Anyone who desires to lead this nation, be it federally or locally, cannot affirm that ideal if there are "people" they see as expendable.