The refrain is repeatedly heard among evangelicals of a more progressive sort these days that "you can't be a single issue voter." Abortion is not the only issue, we are told, there are many other issues for Christians to be concerned about including such things as the poor and the environment. In principal, I agree with the importance of these other concerns, and with the notion that one should not be a single issue voter when possible. I can't help but wonder, however, about whether or not those who advance such a view have really, seriously thought things through. Often, the claims about the wrongness of single issue voting come off with a certain glibness or knee-jerk defensiveness, as if they were ad hoc justifications for a decision already made rather than the result of a careful process of reflection and soul-searching.
It seems to me that the question of whether or not one should be a single issue voter depends on the gravity of the issues at stake in a given election. Are the various issues facing us in a given election of equal moral weightiness? I'm convinced that they are not. As I have wrestled with and thought through this issue, I've become convinced that some issues are so big that they overshadow and perhaps even underlie many other issues. To fail to come down on the right side of these issues, is to fail to be faithful as Christians in our time and place. I am convinced that abortion is just such an issue for our times, and that, as such, it should take precedence over all other considerations in our decision concerning how to vote as Christians. In short, I believe that, in practice, we should be single issue voters. I'd like to attempt to explain why I hold this view.
First of all, I am convinced that abortion kills a fellow human being, one who is deserving of all the same rights and protections that those of us who live outside the womb enjoy. From a purely biological perspective, it is inarguable that from the moment of conception, a human life exists which, if unimpeded in its growth and development, will ultimately become a fully functional human being. If you are reading this, then you are one who was once a single celled fetus whose development towards adulthood was unimpeded. Furthermore, the Christian tradition has always affirmed the personhood of the fetus and has always considered abortion immoral and sought to stop it whenever possible. Richard John Neuhaus points out that, "From the early years of the Church’s life, Christians distinguished themselves from the surrounding pagan society by their refusal to abort or expose their children. And when, centuries later, they were in a position to influence public policy, their conviction that every human life was created and loved by God, and therefore ought to be cared for and protected by us, became the law."
One argument frequently heard from those Christians who wish to ignore or downplay the abortion issue in their voting is that killing in war and the death penalty are also immoral and that, therefore, a candidate who opposes abortion but who supports war or the death penalty is really no better than a candidate who is pro-choice but who opposes war or the death penalty. While at first glance this argument may seem to have some merit, I find it ultimately uncompelling. Without going into a lot of complex argumentation about the permissibility of killing in war or the death penalty (which space here does not permit), I think it suffices to say here that, even if these forms of killing are ultimately judged to be wrong (and all killing is tragic, even if it is not wrong), they still do not compare to the moral tragedy of abortion. This is because not only does abortion kill a fellow human being, it kills the most helpless and innocent human being imaginable. The unborn child in the womb is completely innocent of any crime against another and is in the most completely helpless and dependent position that it is possible for any human being to be in. It has no possibility, even conceptually, of escaping the fate thrust upon it by those who have power over it; it cannot run away, or hide, or argue on its own behalf.
If it is the case, then, that abortion kills a fellow human being, and not only that, but one who is utterly helpless and innocent, it seems to me that abortion is a moral crime of the highest order. It is not simply killing, it is killing the innocent and victimizing the most helpless among us. It is hard for me think of any issue that carries more moral seriousness than this. If throngs of our fellow human beings who exist outside the womb were being carried off en masse to be murdered, such as has happened in the past, I don't think there would be any question among us as Christians that this was the crucial moral issue of our times and that we must attend to this issue above all others. It seems to me then, that it follows from this that if the unborn are fully human in the same sense as the rest of us, and are, furthermore, the most innocent and helpless among us, that abortion must therefore be the crucial moral issue of our times, an issue which takes precedence over all other issues.
The reality of our present political situation, for better or worse, is that we live in a two party system, and that one of the two parties in this system tends to be far stronger on the issue of protecting the human rights of the unborn. This does not mean that the agenda of this political party is synonymous with Christianity, or that Christians should uncritically attach themselves to this party. What it does mean, however, is that given our limited choices and the moral seriousness of the issue at hand, we vote for those who adhere more closely to the historically Christian view on this issue.
