Womb to Tomb Must Include Womb
Disclaimer: This writing is not in support of either presidential candidate. Instead, it is a call to think a little deeper about abortion and the reaching implications of the "Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden" position.
As the 2020 Presidential election draws near, many evangelicals are trying to figure things out and cast their vote in a way that brings good to all people and glory to God. I have recently read a few articles where Pro-life Evangelicals argue for their biblical support of Joe Biden as president of the United States of America. While being opposed to abortion, the Pro-life Evangelicals support Biden because of his proposed policies, they argue, better care for people after birth. At the core of their argument is this statement: "But we believe, that a biblically shaped commitment to the sanctity of human life compels us to a consistent ethic of life that affirms the sanctity of human life from beginning to end."[1] Specifically, they contend that candidate Biden's proposed policies with poverty, healthcare, racism, and climate change better care for people after birth than President Trump's policies.
With the abortion issue, the Pro-life Evangelicals in support of candidate Biden make three points. They say that even if President Trump can over-turn Roe v. Wade, not much will change. The pro-life decision will move to the state level, and most states will affirm the pro-choice position. The second point they make is that the most common reason women give for abortions is that they lack the financial means to support the child. They argue that candidate Biden's policies "would significantly alleviate that financial burden." Finally, they argue abortion is not the only pro-life issue. Instead, pro-life issues are also poverty, lack of health coverage, racism, and climate change. In summary, they exclaim, these other issues undermine or even defeat the 'one policy' pro-life stance.
I believe this argument is flawed, based on the assumption that all injustices are equal. While they rightly contend for the rights of many different people from many different walks of life, they, in effect, disregard the injustice against an entire group of people, the unborn. I contend this argument is why the injustice of abortion cannot be made equal to these other issues. Whoever is accurate about how to deal with these other issues (let's say healthcare), neither side would argue for the legal killings of an impoverished class of people. However, with abortion, one side is willing to give legal permission to kill an entire class of people who are unable to defend themselves.
Will anything change if Roe V Wade is overturned? I have my doubts. However, we have to start somewhere. Nothing will ever change if abortion is the law of the land. Our government should protect all people. Our government should encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. Most certainly, it should not legalize the killing of an entire class of people who have no voice. Maybe at a minimum, our government would place some severe restrictions on the practice of abortion.
What about the death penalty? The current administration supports the death penalty, which seems contrary when considering the sanctity of human life. Here too, I would argue these two evils are not equal. Even if it is immoral to kill a guilty murderer via lethal injection, it is not equal to the injustice of murdering an innocent unborn child. Additionally, the act of abortion kills almost one million unborn children each year in the United States. In 2019, 22 people were put to death under the capital punishment law in the United States. The scope of murder by abortion far outweighs any other form of murder.
Finally, I contend the argument of the Pro-life Evangelicals for Biden lacks in two crucial areas. First, their argument is void of personal moral responsibility. For example, they claim that most women chose abortion because they do not have the financial means to support the child. Let's take a step back. In a significant portion of the abortion cases, the root of the problem is the moral indiscretion leading to the pregnancy. Furthermore, there is a financially sound alternative available – agency adoption. This alternative is viable because the agency waiting list of people wanting to adopt is long and because the agency pays for all the costs related to the pregnancy.
Second, their argument is missing the "tend the garden" (work) mandate given to all humanity at the beginning of time. We are commanded to care for those in need, whether the need is temporary or long-term, and I stand behind all social programs with this goal. However, we must guard against social programs becoming permanent rights, where the recipient becomes dependent on the government for survival. To this end, the institution of family becomes irrelevant, and the motivation to work erodes. In the end, leaving out personal moral responsibility leads to the further enslavement of those they want to help as they become more and more dependent upon the government.
In summary, our government should reward those who perform charitable acts and penalize those who commit evil. Without a doubt, our government has become morally bankrupt as it often rewards evil (taxpayer-funded abortion, for example) and punishes good. Therefore, the church must stand firm and fight for justice for all people, including the unborn. The church must fight for all people to flourish. I sincerely believe this is the desire of every genuine Christian. It only gets complicated when we bring 'who to vote for' to the conversation because the means of achieving human flourishing significantly vary.
(*edited conclusion for clarity)
The article I’m responding to concluded that evangelicals can vote for former Vice President Biden, although he is Pro-Choice because President Trump’s policies regarding other social issues are not as favorable. Alternatively, I contend, the weaknesses of one candidate should not necessarily force us to vote for the other. We have other options, including writing in a candidate or not voting for president.
When you reach the voting booth, you will have to decide who to vote for President of the United States of America. Whether you vote for former Vice President Biden, President Trump, or neither, I hope this article informs your heart and mind as to the depth of injustice against unborn children. I also hope you see that mere social programs are not the end, but just a small means to the ultimate goal of equal justice for all – including those who have no way to defend themselves.
[1] https://www.prolifeevangelicalsforbiden.com/
[i] See also https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/the-case-against-pro-lifers-voting-for-joe-biden/?amp&__twitter_impression=true
*Previous Conclusion:
What should you do? First, if you cannot vote for the current president (who opposes abortion) for a good reason (i.e., it goes against your conscience), this is not a good reason to vote for the other candidate. There are two different options: writing in your vote or not voting for president. Second, consider and pray about all that was pointed out in this article. Since an entire group of people, who have no voice or ability to defend themselves, are being murdered at a rate that is incomparable to any other injustice, then, for me, this keeps me from voting for the pro-choice candidate. [i]