Why I Won't Vote for McCain (or Obama)

Ah, election year. 'Tis the season once again to explore the myriad of presidential choices available to a nation of over 300 million people. Let's see, we have ... two?

The democracy has a right to answer questions, but it has no right to ask them. It is still the political aristocracy that asks the questions. And we shall not be unreasonably cynical if we suppose that the political aristocracy will always be rather careful what questions it asks. And if the dangerous comfort and self-flattery of modern England continues much longer there will be less democratic value in an English election than in a Roman saturnalia of slaves. For the powerful class will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other. The lord will take two things so much alike that he would not mind choosing from them blindfold -- and then for a great jest he will allow the slaves to choose.

G. K. Chesterton, "The Voter and the Two Voices" in A Miscellany of Men, 1912.

Voting on Abortion?

I suspect that not a few dear friends of mine have already decided that Mr. McCain is the only possible moral choice, since Mr. Obama supports abortion. And I have other friends who might say the exact opposite. Unfortunately for both sides, Mr. McCain supports abortion too. As John Médaille puts it in a post that bears reading in full:

A reader of this review called to say that his parish priest had told him that a vote for Obama was a mortal sin and put his soul at risk. Now, as a mere matter of canon law, the priest exceeded his authority; such pronouncements can only be made by competent authority, and that authority is not the parish priest.... However, if the priest is right, if voting for a candidate who supports abortion is a mortal sin, then neither can one vote for John McCain, who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger. We know from past experience that these exceptions turn out to be nearly identical to abortion-on-demand. Further, McCain supports federal money being used for new lines of embryonic stem cell research, which not only requires abortions, but actually creates a market for aborted children....

But the incident does serve as a metaphor for the political wing of the anti-abortion movement. It has never been a pro-life movement, and has always subordinated the totality of Catholic Social Teaching to the needs of the Republican Party. This might even be justified on the grounds of pragmatic politics. But in fact, 35 years of slavish devotion to the Republican Party has produced very little in the way of results. They make a few statements, toss of few crumbs our way, but mostly treat us with contempt, the same kind of contempt that useful idiots and fellow-travelers deserve from their ideological masters. The truth is that the Republicans have appointed 70% or more of all the judges in this country, and if they had wanted to shut down Roe v. Wade, they could have done so a long time ago.

So who's okay with killing babies?

I would even go further. If you think it through, a partial support for abortion is intellectually more frightening than a full stamp of approval. In fact, partial support for abortion should frighten pro-abortion people too. Not because this only partial support means denying some women their abortion rights. Precisely not. Because partially pro-abortion people are the only ones in this debate who really claim it's okay to kill babies.

Think about it. Most pro-abortion people don't seem to hate babies. Honest. When they see babies, they don't reach for the secret pocket where they carry a vial of saline solution. Many of them, in fact, have babies, and calling them "baby-killers" fails to make an impression. Their whole point is that a fetus isn't a baby, because it's not a human yet. Period. Either a fetus is a baby or it isn't, and they answer no. It's part of a woman's body, and forcing a woman to keep it is like forcing her to keep a tumor.

If you grow up anti-abortion, it's possible to spend your whole life without once making this imaginative shift, without once empathizing with the revulsion and horror that real people feel at the vision of a distant court making it illegal to rid yourself of a burgeoning cell mass in your own bowels.

Of course, I've delivered a few of these cell masses now myself, and they always turn out to be people. So I have a hard time keeping this effort up for long; I can't help noting that if the tumor happens to be a little boy or a little girl, naturally that changes things.

But on this point, most totally pro-abortion people agree. Leaving aside the sort of extremists who get millions out of Bill Gates, I think the average totally pro-abortion person would be rather irritated and offended to have to spell out for you that of course if the thing were a baby then no, they would not want a doctor to cut it to pieces with a curette.

The only pro-abortionist who can really claim to care about babies is the one who approves all abortions, or rather, all abortions before whatever magic gestational finish line the fetus has to cross before transmogrifying into a human. Clearly, the Partial-Birth Abortion Act only passed because not only anti-abortion but also millions of pro-abortion Americans chose to place that finish line somewhat before the fetus in question can grab your finger.

For it is not an immediately obvious intellectual disaster to hold that a fetus doesn't become a human until some particular point of development. What is a disaster is to say that a fetus is always a human, and should always be protected -- unless his or her mother recently suffered a crime.

Many pages have already been written about this. My point is that to forbid "most" abortions, but include exceptions for rape and incest (not to a mention a vaguely defined "health of the mother" which goes far beyond emergency operations such as removing a cancerous womb), is not "less" pro-abortion than a total approval of abortion, as so many people on all sides seem to think. It is a fundamentally different statement.

The total pro-abortionist does not say that it is okay to abort babies. The total pro-abortionist says that it is okay to abort fetuses, because they aren't babies, they're fetuses.

The partial pro-abortionist says that fetuses must be protected, because they're actually babies. Except some of these babies actually can be aborted, if the mother really wants to, for a government-approved reason.

When you think it through by their own principles -- who's okay with killing babies?

Of course, the baby is just as dead either way. And in a scientific age that knows so much about these fetuses that it can not only photograph them, but start them in petri dishes so it can test their utterly unique human DNA, I sometimes have trouble imagining the pro-abortionist position. But at least one of these pro-abortionists thinks that he would never approve the abortion of a real baby. What does the other person actually think?

Who to vote for?

So who will I vote for? I'll get back to you on that (I hope). It's just possible that there doesn't happen to be anyone this time round worth voting for, only disquieting figures to vote against. If Hitler ran against Mao Tse Tung, I might sit the election out, even if they were the only two candidates with a "chance" of winning. A vote against Hitler, after all, would also be a vote for Mao. A vote against is a vote degraded.

Though I will admit that I'm intrigued by America's Independent Party and their nomination of Alan Keyes. Even more encouraging is the Constitution Party, which also is unequivocally pro-life, and is large enough that it is on the ballot in many states. In fact, it's the largest party after the Big Two.

Fortunately, I have other political options at my disposal than a single binary choice every four years. Like helping to start a food co-op. I bet you've got a few options too.

Comments

Michael and Margaret Baron

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:51:44

Actually, there is a huge problem with the "Which is worse, opposing some abortions or opposing no abortions?" question. Most pro-aborts believe there is some magical time when the fetus because human. Okay, but where is the demand that all abortions after that magical time be banned? Sadly it doesn't exist for most Americans, because they do support killing what they know is a human being in some circumstances.

I've talked to quite a number of people who are pro-abortion and they all pretty much say the same thing. They would actually rather have the baby killed in some circumstances. The reasons range from, rape, incest, health of the mother, on to, the baby isn't wanted, mother can't properly care for the child, to, most disgusting of all, they would rather knowingly kill the baby than give it up for adoption, even to a loving family. Most of them, however, will also tell you, abortion is wrong in some circumstances.

Pro-choice is actually a pretty good name for these people, because the reason they oppose any legal restriction on abortion, even of those abortions they are personally opposed to, is they think it should be up to the mother to choose whether or not to kill the baby. They are afraid that if abortion is restricted, in some rare circumstance in which they think abortion is the best choice, the poor women will have to turn to unsafe means. So they support unrestricted abortion.

Thinking that educating people so they understand that an unborn child is a human being will cause them to oppose abortion is naive. These people already know that, and they support abortion anyway.

So, given that the basis for Bill's proposition is flawed, I'm still going to vote for people who will restrict some abortions, and against those who will restrict none, wherever I can.

Bill

2008 Sep 22, 13:04 Mon

Hi Barons! Good to hear from you!

Pro-choice is actually a pretty good name for these people, because the reason they oppose any legal restriction on abortion, even of those abortions they are personally opposed to, is they think it should be up to the mother to choose whether or not to kill the baby.

Okay, but then isn't McCain pro-choice too? He also thinks that, in many circumstances, "it should be up to the mother to choose whether or not to kill the baby." He agrees completely with those Americans who "support killing what they know is a human being in some circumstances." Right? So what's the fundamental difference?

I'm still going to vote for people who will restrict some abortions, and against those who will restrict none, wherever I can.

But why not vote for someone who actually opposes killing fetuses because they are babies? You have options, and this seems the only choice consistent with your convictions.

Note that I've revised my post above to mention the Constitution Party, which also is unequivocally pro-life, and is large enough that it is on the ballot in many states.

Most pro-aborts believe there is some magical time when the fetus because human. Okay, but where is the demand that all abortions after that magical time be banned?

As I mentioned, I would see evidence of this in the passing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act. There was certainly a widespread demand for this ban, or the Democrats would never have voted for it.

Thinking that educating people so they understand that an unborn child is a human being will cause them to oppose abortion is naive. These people already know that, and they support abortion anyway.

Hmm. If you mean "these people I have talked to," of course that's your call. But as for the millions of pro-abortion people in this country, I can only go by what they say. If they say that they don't think a fetus is a baby, then, in theory, a new look at the scientific evidence might change their mind.

Believe me, I grant that the human heart is not all sweetness and light, and that mere information is not going to soothe all our ills. But can you really be sure that every pro-abortion person whose media diet is on the level of Reader's Digest and USA Today has really seen the clear scientific evidence for the humanity of the fetus? Or have they just seen pictures of the placenta, or cells in a petri dish, and been snowed under by "scientists" pontificating that we can't be sure? Put it this way: where did you get the evidence on which you base your own conviction? From the major media? I'm speaking of ordinary people, of course, not politicians. No professional politican has the slightest excuse.

I've talked to quite a number of people who are pro-abortion and they all pretty much say the same thing. They would actually rather have the baby killed in some circumstances.

But my question is: do they say it's a "baby" then? Or are they vague on the magical time? As far as I can tell, pro-abortion people are either adamant that the fetus is not a baby, or adamant that up to a certain point (e.g. partial-birth abortion) we can't be sure. Have you really gotten numerous pro-abortion people to say to you, point blank, "Yes, I am sure that this is a baby, and yes, I am sure that the mother should be able to abort it?"

If the answer is yes -- please explain how this differs from McCain's position. The worst you can say is that they are now in the same category as McCain, i.e., clearly admitting that these fetuses are babies, and clearly stating that they may be killed.

Thanks again for reading, and for your comment!

Sylvia Smith

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:06:48 -0400

Note: I received this comment in response to a post on Penny Justice which linked to this blog, so it seems to belong here rather than there.

Hi Bill,

I think we have met once, a long time ago, but in case you don't remember me, my name is Sylvia! I know your brothers Mike and Joe. I bet you are getting the most comments from your subscribers now that you are talking more explicit politics! I'm afraid I can't resist the urge either.

I have not heard that specific argument from a pro-life person on why to vote third-party (or, in practical terms, to make it more likely for Obama to win--which is frighteningly likely as it is). I agree with the Barons that pro-abortion people are not ignorant that a fetus is a human life (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091810.html) or if they are it's definitely culpable ignorance. I agree with you that McCain is not strictly pro-life--his support of embryonic stem-cell research is particularly disturbing. However, if you are making the argument based on "what message it sends" to have such a man with such a position as president, I won't grant you that Obama would be preferable to McCain. To have Obama as a president would be to have the worst moral evils writ large as completely fine in all cases--he wouldn't want any American to be "punished with a child."

Now, I'm young enough and idealistic enough to consider the third-party vote as a real and viable option, something I would certainly do if it seemed the more conservative candidate had no chance of winning due to overwhelming support for the pro-death, pro-socialism candidate in the race. For better or worse, we do seem locked into a two-party, or at any rate, two-candidate system right now. I did vote my conscience in the Republican primary, but as November nears I am thinking it more and more likely I will vote McCain-Palin. I'm certainly not going to stick a bumper sticker on my car, though. I agree that there's a lot of work to be done outside of this narrow presidential race, work that I hope will influence presidential races in the future. Until that happens, however, I will have to use my suffrage as a power of veto.

Yours in Christ,
Sylvia

PS This may be a public comment, as you like.

PPS I have also heard another argument for voting third-party that goes like this: President Obama, even if he signed pro-abortion legislation into law, would leave voters only indirectly responsible for the deaths of the unborn children, whereas President McCain would leave them directly responsible for casualties in supposed future wars he would engage in. Therefore, one must not support McCain in conscience. I'm not sure what I think about this one--any thoughts?

Bill

Hi Sylvia! Thanks for writing.

I won't grant you that Obama would be preferable to McCain.

Please don't! I never said that, and I don't say that. I'm just saying McCain isn't "preferable" to Obama, either. You might think that either one is a better strategic choice, but that's different. The commandment is, "Thou shalt not murder," not, "Thou shalt not murder, but if thou art going to murder, thou shalt score extra points by keeping your count lower than thy neighbor."

I agree with the Barons that pro-abortion people are not ignorant that a fetus is a human life.

Hmm. It's a tricky thing to claim what someone else really knows. I would say that it is reasonable to expect that any politician ought to know that a fetus is a human life, but as I mentioned above, I think it's presumptuous to make that claim for ordinary Americans.

I did vote my conscience in the Republican primary, but as November nears I am thinking it more and more likely I will vote McCain-Palin.

Your grammar rather suggests that a McCain-Palin vote will not be a vote by your conscience. :) That's the point of voting for a third party; you can vote your conscience.

I have not heard that specific argument from a pro-life person on why to vote third-party (or, in practical terms, to make it more likely for Obama to win--which is frighteningly likely as it is)....

That little phrase "in practical terms" is the crux of the whole third party argument. It's not true; in practical terms, you have voted for your candidate.

For better or worse, we do seem locked into a two-party, or at any rate, two-candidate system right now.

We aren't locked into such a system until it's illegal to vote elsewhere. Nor will the system improve until we do vote elsewhere.

How seriously do you think Republicans are going to take our anti-abortion protestations unless we refuse to vote for them when they don't listen? What will the next choice be like, and what will it take to get "pro-life Republicans" not to vote Republican? What will pro-life Republicans do when the Democratic candidate supports all abortions, while the Republican candidate supports all abortions too except he promises to outlaw abortions by all women over 55, all women under 11, and native-born Hawaiians?

And how is that choice fundamentally different from the choice currently before us? If it's a question of numbers, then it sounds like if a Republican was going to allow all abortions except from five families in Browntown, we'd be morally obligated to vote Republican.

Trying to end abortion incrementally is one thing. That can be a sensible strategy. But there can be no incremental thinking on abortion; not without doing mortal violence to logic, honesty, or both.

PPS I have also heard another argument for voting third-party that goes like this: President Obama, even if he signed pro-abortion legislation into law, would leave voters only indirectly responsible for the deaths of the unborn children, whereas President McCain would leave them directly responsible for casualties in supposed future wars he would engage in. Therefore, one must not support McCain in conscience. I'm not sure what I think about this one--any thoughts?

That's not an argument for voting third-party, that's an argument for voting Obama. A third party vote is a vote for that candidate -- if it's "against" anyone, it's against all the other candidates, not just the one that someone is telling you to vote for. :)

But I don't understand the distinction you make between the two candidates. Whatever responsibility you share with the candidate you vote for, it seems like it works the same with both candidates, Obama's abortion bills and McCain's wars alike. (Or Obama's wars and McCain's abortion bills alike.)

I am glad to hear you bring up the war question, though. Many conservative Catholic "Who should I vote for?" pamphlets are strangely silent on the subject on the topic of threatening to obliterate cities with nuclear warheads. It makes such pamphlets less than worthless; if we can gloss over unjust war, why can't liberal Catholics gloss over aborion? I get impatient with the false comparison between abortion and capital punishment, but abortion and unjust war are quite comparable indeed.

Anyhow, I hope you will pardon this impatience if it's spilling into my tone here; it is entirely not with yourself or other commenters here, but with the corruption of our leaders both within and without the Church. Thanks very much for your comment, Sylvia. And thanks for your readership, too.

From bill Wed Sep 24 09:26:18 2008

Ryan Corrigan

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:08:04

I agree with Baron's point about pro-choicers not really doubting the humanity of a fetus. I found a discussion board where pro-choicers argue with pro-lifers over that very issue. The choicers are clear: They know that a fetus is a human and they don't care. You can read their discussion here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/TGT26IUAFGCSMABHP

Mind you, these aren't politicians (that I know of anyway) these are everyday average chumps arguing on a message board. (I point that out because you specified that you're "speaking of ordinary people, of course, not politicians."

The structure of your argument depends on the assumption that, when it comes to abortion, people fall into one of three categories: Always, Sometimes or Never. Always and Never people at least have in common that they would under no circumstances kill a human, but Sometimes people would. Therefore, Always and Never people should recoil in horror together at the sight of the Sometimes people.

This is, I think, the fundamental weakness of the argument. In reality, peoples' opinions on abortion are far more "nuanced" and messy than your argument can allow for. Some people call themselves pro-life even though they think abortion should be legal during the first few weeks; some pro-choicers have nothing but hate and disgust for abortion even though they are committed to keeping it as a fundamental right.

In this mix, McCain's position is not a uniquely horrific abberation; it is an ordinary position of an ordinary American. To quote Screwtape,

Are you not being a trifle naif? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches. That might have been so if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head.

At any rate, McCain will give those of us on the pro-life side some of what we want, whereas Obama will give us nothing. McCain is at least friendly with the pro-life side, even with his flaws, while Obama is not. We have a better chance of coaxing McCain away from his exceptions position than we do of making any inroads with Obama. Moreover, there are the limitations of the office to consider; what CAN a president really do? At a certain point, it does not make a difference whether the President is an outstanding pro-life guy or merely an adequate one. He can sign some Executive Orders, he can appoint good judges to the bench, but he can't do much more than that.

I'll spare you for now my thoughts on third party candidates. I assume you're going to write a whole new post just on voting third party where I can comment about that!

Bill

Ryan! Good to hear from you. And C. S. Lewis, too.

This is, I think, the fundamental weakness of the argument. In reality, peoples' opinions on abortion are far more "nuanced" and messy than your argument can allow for.

In this mix, McCain's position is not a uniquely horrific abberation; it is an ordinary position of an ordinary American.

You're certainly right that McCain isn't uniquely horrific, because he's not the only "Sometimes" person out there, and I hope I haven't given the impression that I thought so. The point of my post wasn't to paint McCain as a particular monster; there are many other politicans taking the same line. And yes, many ordinary people, too.

I think you're right that many positions are messy; but I still think they fall into the Always, Sometimes, and Never categories. Most of the nuanced and messy people simply fall into the Sometimes category. They may be unclear in their thought, but that doesn't obligate us to do the same.

I did also mention "extremists", and as your link shows, we should add a fourth category of people who are horrifically explicit that the fetus has no rights at all until we feel like granting them.

However, I would maintain that that is still a minority position among pro-abortion people, no matter how many individual examples you may find online or in person; mostly because pro-abortion politicians seem loathe to talk that way. These politicians are proud to talk about abortion rights, but until they are equally proud to state that a fetus is human when we say so, it seems that they, at least, think the majority of their constituents wouldn't agree.

Are you not being a trifle naif? It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of the Enemy's clutches.

Ha! I've addressed this somewhat in my comments above; I'm not trying to make a blanket statement that every pro-abortion person is simply ignorant of science. How could I know that? But by the same token, I object to the blanket statement that we can somehow know that all, or even most, pro-abortion people really know the truth about human development, and just reject it. If C. S. Lewis had thought that every last modern mind was impervious to logical argument, presumably he wouldn't have given us Screwtape.

My post is about the intellectual positions of being totally pro-abortion versus partially pro-abortion. It is about what McCain and Obama happen to say about abortion, not about the secrets of their hearts or whether they have contradicted this claim in real life by their actions.

And my frustration is with those (not necessarily anyone commenting here), who are horrified with the Always position, but have little anger and make excuses for the Sometimes position, at least when it surfaces in the murky minds of Republican candidates.

At any rate, McCain will give those of us on the pro-life side some of what we want, whereas Obama will give us nothing. McCain is at least friendly with the pro-life side, even with his flaws, while Obama is not. We have a better chance of coaxing McCain away from his exceptions position than we do of making any inroads with Obama.

This is one analysis of McCain, anyway; I can't argue that people might choose him as a strategically better choice. But strategy isn't the same as a moral obligation. Another analysis, based on experience, is that politicians with his exceptions wind up maintaining the status quo; since abortion-on-demand has been legal for 35 years now, there isn't likely to be much difference between these two candidates on the question of abortion. As I said in my last post, you might even think (I don't) that Obama's policies will result in fewer abortions. Because both candidates support abortion, just to varying degrees, we are in the realm of strategy, not morals.

Moreover, there are the limitations of the office to consider; what CAN a president really do? At a certain point, it does not make a difference whether the President is an outstanding pro-life guy or merely an adequate one. He can sign some Executive Orders, he can appoint good judges to the bench, but he can't do much more than that.

Hmm. I think the quality of his thoughts on abortion will have much to do with the particular orders he signs and the "good" judges he appoints. But if the president's role on abortion is so limited, that seems an even stronger argument to look at other issues when choosing a candidate, to consider what a president can do. Like, I don't know, start a war.

I'll spare you for now my thoughts on third party candidates. I assume you're going to write a whole new post just on voting third party where I can comment about that!

Ha! I guess I'd better do that, then.

Thanks again, Ryan.

</http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/tgt26iuafgcsmabhp></http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091810.html>