Man Bites Blog

Coming from this discussion, here’s one way to think about voting and the election:

Supposed a bus route is proposed that would be a great help to some poor community.  The proposed bus route would also happen to go by an abortion clinic, making it much easier for many people to take advantage of its services, and it is a moral certainty that more people would do so.

What level of moral cooperation does someone who advocates for this bus route, with full knowledge of the incremental abortions, have for them?

As strange as it is to base it on external factors, I think a lot of it has to do with how it is proposed.  If it is named something like “The Planned Parenthood Express” and the inclusion of the abortion clinic is a prominent feature in almost every pitch for it, then it would be hard to justify supporting it.    If the emphasis is on getting folks to their jobs (at locations other than the abortion clinic), then not.

Of course, this opens the door to some mischief.  Advocates of embryonic research always stress the “cure” side of the proposition, not the embryo-destructive side.  Advocates for torture stress saving a major US city, not the infliction of pain.

The difference is that the the good part is dependent on the bad part.  I can’t get cures from embryonic research without destroying embryos.  I can’t save the city without terrorizing the captive.

But my proposed bus route could provide the hoped-for benefit even if nobody ever uses it to procure an abortion.  So I can will that the bus route be established and help folks get to work without willing that there be more abortions.  (Though if the economic viability of the route is dependent on people using it to get to the abortion clinic….)

Part of why I decided I could not vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket is that they made embryonic research a main issue of their campaign — with Ron Reagan’s convention speech and the “Chris Reeve will walk” nonsense.  It was difficult not to see a vote for them as a vote for more embryo-destructive research.

It will be interesting to see how this campaign develops.

Stephen Brainbridge quotes Arhchbishop Chaput’s post on Roman Catholics for Obama and adds:

The Archbishop’s standard—being able to explain your vote, “with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life” puts the problem for people like Andrew Sullivan and Doug Kmiec quite starkly.

I agree this is a problem for Catholic supporters of Obama.  But on the flip side, Catholics supporting Republican candidates better be prepared to confront those impacted by the war.  Here’s how that conversation might go…

Iraqi mother whose children were killed in the invasion:  So, you voted for a candidate who pledged to continue the Iraqi invasion even after you recognized it as a failure.

GOP voter: Yup

Mother: Care to explain?

GOP voter: Well, the candidate who opposed the invasion supported legalized abortion.

Mother:  Doesn’t your country already have legalized abortion?

GOP voter:  Yes!  And that’s the problem.  It has to stop!

Mother:  Doesn’t your current president oppose legalized abortion?

GOP voter: Yes, he does.

Mother: And your country still has legalized abortion?

GOP voter: Yes, but it’s not that simple.  Legalized abortion was brought about by a Supreme Court Ruling that can only be changed by the Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment.

Mother: Oh — has your president proposed such an amendment?

GOP voter: Well, no.

Mother:  So explain to me why electing a pro-life president is so crucial that it’s worth my two sons?

GOP voter: Well, the president appoints the Supreme Court Justices.

Mother: Oh, and has your candidate pledged to appoint justices who would overturn this decision?

GOP voter: No, not exactly.

Mother:  When did this Supreme Court decision take place?

GOP voter: 1973

Mother: Oh, that’s 35 years ago; so I assume all those justices have since been replaced.  For how many of those years have Republicans held the presidency?

GOP Voter: 22

Mother: Oh, so almost all the Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidents who professed opposition to legalized abortion, and still there’s no change?

GOP Voter: Well, you have to understand…

Mother: Well, I understand that your war has demolished my town and taken my sons.  And that is a change form the previous president.

GOP Voter:  Yes, but war is not an “intrinsic” evil like abortion is, so I must base my vote on abortion.

Mother:  Well, it doesn’t make much difference to me whether my sons were killed by an intrinsically evil act or an incorrect prudential judgment.  They’re just as dead.  But you go ahead and vote on it being more important to keep electing presidents who make vague statements  indicating they might end abortion, even though they have not done so for the previous 35 years.  I do know they sure can wage war, though.