Can A Christian Support Abortion Rights?

This weekend I took a look at Joel Hunter's article "Politics" in the current issue of Relevant Magazine. Accompanying the article are the results of the recent Relevant Reader Poll, conducted online at RelevantMagazine.com. In response to the question, Can A Christian Support Abortion Rights?, 53% said... yes. When asked, "Who Would Jesus Vote For?", more of Relevant's readers chose Barack Obama (28%) than any other candidate. In light of the fact that Barack Obama aggressively supports a mother's "right" to execute her children before they are born, I am dumbstruck that so many 20-something Christians believe he is the candidate Jesus would most likely support. The first sentence of Hunter's article alludes to the notion that it is a terrible thing to be a "one-issue" voter. I have to assume that it is this kind of thinking which prompted a majority of Relevant readers to declare that is is OK for Christians to support abortion rights. In other words, I think a lot of young Christians (who don't sufficiently grasp the barbarity of abortion) are thinking, "I like what this candidate stands for here, here, and here, so I can overlook his or her support of abortion (after all, I don't want to be a one-issue voter)." Any time I hear reasoning like that, I'm reminded of a short article John Piper wrote some years back. It's a tremendous help at times like these. I've excerpted three paragraphs below, but PLEASE take the time to read the whole thing. It's only seven paragraphs altogether.

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.

It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.

So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those.

When Abort73 started advertising in Relevant Magazine, our primary aim was to introduce young Christians to Abort73 so that they could help us introduce Abort73 to culture at large. That's still our aim, but in light of the results of this recent survey, I am reminded that there are still a whole lot of young Christians out here who need to be better educated about abortion in the first place.