The Pro-Life Case for McCain
Gerald Bradley, a law professor at my alma mater, has an article out today giving the pro-life case for a McCain presidency:
Of the remaining pro-life Republicans, none can match McCain’s record of opposing abortion. He has served in Congress for 24 years, and cast a lot of votes on abortion legislation during that time. His record is not merely exemplary — it is perfect. McCain’s votes on abortion really could not be better. A campaign advertisement in South Carolina says of John McCain: “Pro-life. Not just recently. Always. Never wavering.” The ad is true.
It is no criticism of any other pro-life candidate to say that McCain’s track record makes him the best of a small number of good choices. Mike Huckabee is a good man and solidly pro-life. I personally do not doubt the sincerity or depth of Mitt Romney’s present commitment to the unborn. But experience matters. Being battle-hardened in defense of life is a real plus. Twenty-four years of service at the national level — almost all of them in the Senate — make a big difference when we are talking about the next President, compared to candidates who have been small-state governors. There is no need to speculate or to rely upon promises or take matters on faith when it comes to McCain and abortion.
One of the major knocks against McCain on the pro-life front has been his support for some forms of embryo-destroying stem cell research. Here is how Prof. Bradley addresses these concerns:
In face-to-face conversation with McCain I said not only that such research was wrong, but that it would never be limited to “spares.” I said that big biotech needed a far larger supply of research subjects than “spares” could provide. McCain asked to continue that conversation, to hear more. Now he realizes that there is no need to exploit “spare” embryos, in light of recent successes with adult cells. And so he has been telling South Carolinians over the last few days.
I hadn’t heard that McCain had changed his position on this, but if what Bradley says is true, this would seem to remove one of the major stumbling blocks of the McCain campaign.
Prof. Bradley also argues for McCain-as-pro-lifer based on his unwavering opposition to torture:
Though death is a risk with perhaps few contemporary “harsh interrogation” techniques, all torture raises questions about the meaning of human dignity and the immunity of all persons against unjustified physical attack. In other words, torture is a life issue, too. Though not nearly so important as abortion, it is nonetheless important in its own way. A candidate’s stand on torture is revealing of his (or her) whole approach to moral questions. Of the remaining Republican candidates, only McCain (so far as I know) has plainly said that all torture is wrong, and that Americans simply should not do it. I agree with him.
I still have some significant concerns about the prospect of a McCain presidency. While McCain’s voting record on abortion is stellar, he has an awful relationship with National Right to Life, which could impede the ability of pro-lifers to move their agenda if he is president. And of course I disagree with him on some non-life related issues. But Prof. Bradley’s article probably does the best job anyone could making the pro-life case for McCain.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
John McCain is a great man, and a hugely accomplished one. I disagree with him about several issues – obviously stem cell research, and I much more restrictionist on immigration, and his campaign finance “reform” is an idiotic joke.
Yet the most important issue is abortion, and issue number 2-whatever should take a backseat to that one. On this issue, McCain has been excellent. He has also stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that is the best way to help the unborn….to finally return abortion to the legislative process.
Meh. Campaign finance reform has been used against pro-life groups. Beyond that, here’s this from Jonathan Martin at politico.com after McCain’s loss in Michigan (here’s the full link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0108/Mitts_dominanting_Michigan_performance_and_bad_exits_for_McCain.html):
“Even while campaigning in Christian conservative-heavy western Michigan, McCain was content to stick with the economy, spending, the war and climate change. Not once did he ever bring up the fact that he, unlike his top rival, had a consistent pro-life voting record.
I asked a top McCain adviser why the senator would never raise what would seem like a beneficial issue and didn’t really get much of an answer.
The reality is — to borrow Rudy’s favorite phrase — is that McCain is only comfortable talking about that which he really cares about.
And he’s much more passionate about global warming than he is about abortion. The problem is that most of his own party takes the exact opposite view.”
That last really, really bothers me, since one of the solutions to the farce problem of global warming is the reduction of the human population, and one of the methods to that is abortion.
I appreciate the anecdotal evidence of John McCain’s campaign, but nothing speaks louder than a factual, chronicled vote as a U.S. senator. In 2006 and 2007, McCain voted for embryonic stem cell research enhancement. Whatever he may be telling people in private, John McCain remains a public and political advocate of embryonic stem cell research. Until this changes, there can be no “pro-life case” for McCain.
I have much respect for his record on abortion and his unequivocal opposition to torture. Very important pro-life issues. But let us not forget voting records on equally important pro-life issues.
Yet the most important issue is abortion
Embryonic stell cell research is the same fundamental evil as abortion–the deliberate, premeditated and certain murder of innocent, vulnerable persons who are unprotected by the law. In fact, if Bush had not vetoed the two embryonic stem cell research enhancement bills that McCain supported, there would be more children murdered in science labs than in abortion clinics.
You are right that embryonic stem cell research is the same fundamental evil as abortion. Yet until the number approaches destruction on the order of 2 million per year, there remains a very important difference.
I’m going to say it again for the nth time in this blog–Let’s stop defending mediocre records with regard to protection of human life of these candidates and let us focus on what is important as Catholics. Let us talk about instead about what would be the effects of ESCR on the overall “culture of death.”
You guys keep abortion as the “sole #1 issue” completely forgetting the effects that a potential legalization of Embryonic Stem Cell Research will have on abortion itself. After ESCR, forget completely about a possible overturn of Roe v. Wade. A triumph for ESCR is also a triumph for abortion. After ESCR is legalized, the cause for defending life will be hurt fatally and we will reach a point of no return in legislature where human life will not be recognized as such in the embryo.
Ok… McCain is not 100% Pro-Life… He is 90%… Ugh.
Sole is an incorrect characterization. Most important is what I stated, and given our political structure, how else to make a decision when voting (and non-voting is a principle I would strongly defend as an option)?
Abortion is the most important thing. How to reduce the number, in terms of law? Overturn Roe v. Wade. And obviously of course hope, pray, and work for a culture of life, which begins with personal morality.
Policraticus,
Agreed. So long as McCain supports embryo-destroying research, he cannot claim the pro-life mantle. But if Bradley is right, and McCain has been saying at events in South Carolina that he’s changed his mind (something I can’t confirm or disconfirm) then I think that changes matters.
So long as McCain supports embryo-destroying research, he cannot claim the pro-life mantle. But if Bradley is right, and McCain has been saying at events in South Carolina that he’s changed his mind (something I can’t confirm or disconfirm) then I think that changes matters.
If McCain goes on record publicly with a change of mind (and heart) on ESCR, then I will likely vote for him.
Abortion is the most important thing. How to reduce the number, in terms of law? Overturn Roe v. Wade. And obviously of course hope, pray, and work for a culture of life, which begins with personal morality.
Katerina’s correct. The battle for life has shifted from abortion to ESCR. Roe v. Wade is status quo. If ESCR is enhanced federally through legislation, then there would be little to no case against Roe v. Wade. Federally enhanced ESCR will virtually guarentee that abortion remains a legal, federally protected “right” for women.
It seems possible that adult skin cells can be used in medical treatments. But regardless, the battle has not “shifted,” there is simply a new front in which life must be defended.
When ESCR destroys millions per year, then perhaps the battle would have shifted. But until then, abortion is our grave national shame and should be our largest concern. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, very quickly about half the states would impose serious restrictions, including some outright bans, and the lives of children would saved on a mass scale.
And in terms of Roe being status quo, it wasn’t status quo less than two decades ago. It was one vote away from being overturned. Second, anti-abortion presidents and legislators matter – a lot. Beyond Roe, there are a wide variety of ways in which the law impacts and shapes abortion – public funding, military availability, minors and notification, FDA approvals, trimester restrictions, and on and on. We should never underestimate the determination of our opposition either. They are extremely determined and on occasion quite successful.
“When ESCR destroys millions per year, then perhaps the battle would have shifted. But until then, abortion…should be are largest concern”
Jonathan, I think you are missing Katerina’s point. Because of the import and gravity of abortion and because of the current state of the law an legalizing of ESCR would make an overturning of Roe v. Wade virtually impossible for the foreseeable future. Therefore if we are serious about abortion (as we all are) we must put our efforts into protecting life by safeguarding embryonic stem cells.
The question is not whether lives are destroyed by abortion of ESCR. Nor is the question which is worse or more important. Every death from either is one death too many. Nevertheless, the two are intimately connected, and a “pro-life” [anti-abortion] candidate which does not stand with the Church on ESCR will have zero success on the abortion front.
I’m not understanding the argument that if ESCR is funded, that will be the end of any chance of overturning Roe v. Wade.
Certainly we are against both abortion and ESCR for the same reason, and if politicians and citizens were all smart and self-examined enough to have thought about their positions on ESCR and abortion, then widespread approval of ESCR would indicate opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade.
However, in fact, most people do not think very clearly about these issues if they think at all. Most ordinary people who are against abortion are as much against it for emotional reasons as for logical ones; and most people who are in favor of ESCR are as much for it for emotional reasons as logical ones.
So while ESCR is my main reason for not being a McCain supporter right now, I can very much imagine him both signing legislation to fund ESCR (if the current appearance that the “need” for it has past turns out to be false) and also working actively to overturn Roe.
“…but nothing speaks louder than a factual, chronicled vote as a U.S. senator.”
Here’s the problem with that: as a Senator, stuff comes up, you have to vote on it — yes, no, or abstain or “present” or miss the vote. As an executive, he’d really be in charge of driving policy, and it doesn’t seem life issues — abortion, or ESCR more broadly — would drive him all that much. More lip service from another warrior who, by the way, doesn’t give a rat’s rear end re: free speech, another issue with which we fundies should be concerned.
Gee, so far this ani’t rocket science, folks. People say what you want them to -especially in political spotlights. To get to the intent: just follow the money . . .