What can a President do about Abortion?

Actually, the question you should be asking is: Who will the President appoint to the supreme court?

Many “Evangelicals” (I use quotes because I feel like the term has become nothing more than a meaningless label) would not vote for a presidential candidate who is personally “Pro-Choice” regardless of any other aspects of their platform. I think this is a huge, huge mistake. For instance, it seems that much of the opposition to Rudy Giuliani, and subsequent support for Mike Huckabee revolves solely around him being 1) a Christian, 2) Pro-Life, 3) and against Gay Marriage (supposedly things that Rudy is against or not as strong about).

My friends and fellow Christians, please consider this line of thinking as you make a decision about this issue:

Likely 99% of “Evangelicals” are pro-choice on Adultery.

Does this mean that you are pro-Adultery? No. Does this mean that you don’t think Adultery is a sin? No. What this simply means, is that you don’t believe people should be arrested for committing Adultery.

Giuliani’s stance on Abortion is very similar. He is saying that he isn’t prepared to criminalize people for having an Abortion, but he does wish to stop it in any way that he can (see the first sentence of this post). And how can he do that? By appointing strict constructionist judges (something he has adamantly stated again and again). The confusion comes from the fact that often people equate someone who is Pro-Choice on abortion, as someone who is defending the morality of abortion. Certainly, there are many people out there that do, in fact, defend the morality of abortion. This is clearly not Giuliani’s stance, and unless you simply believe him to be a total and absolute liar, he has repeatedly stated that he will do the one thing that a President can do to help end Abortion: Appoint strict constructionist judges. Again, this is the only thing that a President can do about Abortion.

Another argument is that if you (as a pro-life voter) vote for a pro-choice Republican, then somehow you are loosing some clout, or perhaps wavering in your principals. I also do not think that this is true at all. A vote for a candidate does not constitute 100% agreement and support of every single personal position or decision a candidate makes. Heck, I certainly don’t agree with 100% of every decision that my best friends make. Should I stop calling them friends? Because I choose to call them my friend, does this constitute me approving of 100% of their decisions? Of course not.

As a side, the same principal can be applied to the religion of a candidate. If I voted for Mitt Romney – does this mean that I agree with Mormonism in any way? No. This is because in politics, what matters is a person’s value system. Supporting a political candidate has absolutely nothing to do with agreement on someone’s theological beliefs.

Once again, the same idea stands for a presidential candidate. What matters with supporting a public servant is whether or not they will do things that will help (promote) your value system. Also, you must be willing to compromise when it comes to voting, because there is no way that we will ever elect a person you happen to agree with 100% unless, of course, we elected you.

So for instance, say conservatives are faced with voting between Hillary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani. As a conservative, which of the two is going to do the most good furthering your value system? If, for example, Hillary Clinton is elected because you refused to vote for Rudy Giuliani – in effect – you (as a conservative) will be allowing someone with a value system that is much more opposed to your own, become elected – plain and simple. The same could be said between the conservative candidates. Between Huckabee and Romney – as President of the United States, who is going to do the most to help your value system ?

Completely writing someone off (note that this is often an emotional response rather than a pragmatic one) without considering their value system (especially without considering a candidate’s real practical impact on a certain issue: such as abortion) or the impact that another candidate will have in furthering your values, I think, is an irresponsible way to consider presidential candidates. It is important to think rationally and practically when you consider voting for a presidential candidate, whether Republican or Democrat. Single issue voting, in most cases, does much more harm than good. One last time: The question you should be considering as you enter the voting booth is: Which candidate will do the most to help promote my value system.

At least, that’s my opinion.

–Note– This post is not meant as an endorsement of a particular candidate.  I use Giuliani as an example merely because this is the objection about him I hear the most from “the Evangelicals”.


5 Responses to “What can a President do about Abortion?”

  1. Steve Says:

    How Can any conservative vote for Romney?

    He was listed as one of the top ten Republicans in Name Only by Human Events Magazine.


    What will he be after the primary?

    And would he be another George Bush if he gets elected?

  2. whatthecrap? Says:

    Then again, National Review endorsed him . I guess it just depends on whose opinion you trust, and if you trust Romney himself.

    I wouldn’t just take one places opinion for it.

  3. whatthecrap? Says:

    Plus, the Human Events article was in 2005. Lot’s has changed since then, even many of the opinions of the Human Events writers.

  4. Chris Says:

    Your argument is flawed. Pro-choice Adultery and Pro-choice for life are two different things. In adultery both individuals involved are consenting to the action and will be held accountable by their individual families. With abortion the life we are killing has no say in the matter. It is a silent murder. Here’s an interesting question for you. Why do we charge a person who murders a woman with child with double homicide? Because we are dealing with life. Abortion is not just some moral belief like abstenance – it is dealing with life and death decisions – a bit more important to hold high standards on. Murder is murder in every form.

  5. Jordan Says:

    Chris is right. Life undeniably starts at conception and unborn babies or fetuses or whatever you want to call them have the same right to life as you or me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: