Voting Pro-Life Is Not an Opinion

Vote Pro-Life badgeThe Stewardship Foundation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles of morals and ethics as laid out by the call of Christian conscience in 2009. Conscience is not the same as opinions or feelings. So on the matter of voting for a pro-abortion candidate, we must follow our conscience, regardless of how we “feel” about a particular candidate.

The taking of a God-given life is against natural law. It’s a matter of conscience, not opinion. It’s known by reason, not because it’s written down. Cain sinned when he murdered Abel long before Moses received the Ten Commandments. And Cain knew it was wrong to murder.

If a political candidate supports abortion, or any other moral evil, voting for that person makes us an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. So at this writing, where do the remaining committed candidates stand on abortion?

  • Hillary Clinton (D) Consistently fights against pro-life and believes women have the right to abortion for any reason.
  • Ted Cruz (R) Solid pro-life voting record since joining the Senate in 2013.
  • John Kasich (R) Strong pro-life voting record during 18 years in Congress, and has signed 16 pro-life laws as governor of Ohio.
  • Marco Rubio (R) Solid pro-life voting record during 5 years in the Senate.
  • Bernie Sanders (D) Solid pro-abortion voting record (over 100 times) in his career.
  • Donald Trump (R) Admits to being pro-choice in the past, but in 2012 declared himself pro-life after what he terms “a personal experience” with friends. He pledges to fight against the abortion-funding loopholes in ObamaCare.

So there it is. For those of strong moral conviction, we have but one choice this presidential election year: we must vote our conscience and cast our vote on the side of life.

What’s Good About Positive Law?

Positive law is a term used to describe statutory man-made laws that oblige or specify an action for an individual or a group. Roe v. Wade, for instance, is based on positive law.

Natural law, on the other hand, is based on inherent rights conferred not by an act of legislation but by God, nature, or reason. When we do the right thing, we obey natural law.

Now that we’ve described these two types of law, we’ll get to the meat of our discussion—why a case coming before the Supreme Court in 2016 in Texas, Whole Women Health v. Cole, matters. Put aside certain requirements that must be met as to cleanliness of the facility and competency of the abortion doctors to consider this side of the argument: the defendants claim that if the abortion center is shut down, women seeking an abortion will have to travel over 235 miles to get one! Not a particularly long drive for a Texan, but will the courts rule it as an “undue burden” and thus rule against the pro-life plaintiffs?

Socrates put the question: What if a friend, whom you knew to be deranged, asked you the whereabouts of a weapon? Would a lie, in this case, be wrong? Socrates alerts us that in natural law, we don’t always have a hand on real moral principle. Natural law must be discovered by humans through the use of reason and choosing good over evil.

The Supreme Court judges, practicing positive law, can do what the lower courts did—argue whether 150 miles is a more relevant travel distance. Can any distance in miles be “more relevant” in order to destroy a life? Our courts rule on man-made laws that speak to actions and groups, and completely ignore the ethical considerations of natural law: the victims—this baby, it’s mother and father, the family who will never share this child’s love and joy, the world who will never benefit from a life who could well grow up to be another Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle. There seems to be nothing positive about the term “positive law” in this case.