I have been thinking about politics quite a bit lately. Not because I plan to run for office or pursue that Political Science degree I started so many years ago before switching majors. I’ve been thinking about politics because politics need to be thought about, especially from a biblical worldview, especially now. We have before us, a possibility that many thought would never arise: we face the possibility of having to choose between a Pro-Choice Democrat and a Pro-Choice Republican for the office of President of the United States.

Though it is still early in the campaign, on the Democrat side, it appears that Hillary Clinton is steadily pulling away from the pack. On Clinton, Justin Taylor recently quoted Paul Kengor, presidential historian, and author of God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life, who said: “If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton.” Clinton has repeatedly and unabashedly made her position known: she will not only defend but seek to expand abortion “rights.”

On the other side of the aisle, former New York Mayor Rudy Guliani is also, though not as decidedly as Clinton, pulling away from the pack. Though Guliani’s party nomination is nowhere near as likely as Clinton’s it raises an interesting dilemna for pro-life voters, because Guliani too, would defend, not oppose abortion. On this, Joe Carter notes: “I am a political realist, which is why I am an incrementalist. Because I’m a political realist, I also believe than in the long run electing Rudy Giuliani will be even more detrimental to the pro-life cause than would a Hillary Clinton presidency.”

Carter raises some interesting points of consideration. His essential argument is that, not only would Guliani not appoint judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade, he would open the proverbial door to future pro-choice Republian candidates, therefore being more detrimental to the pro-life cause than Clinton would be. Guliani has publicly stated that his view of “constructionist” judges could allow Roe v. Wade to stand and that he supports public funding for abortion and abortion on demand. The practical and blunt truth is that there is not much practical difference between the positions of Guiliani and Clinton on abortion issues.

As Carter notes, “if Giuliani is elected everything changes. Despite what a plank in the party platform might say, when the de facto leader of the GOP is pro-abortion then the party has crossed the line over into the “party of death.” a pro-abortion Republican President essentially leaves pro-life supporters without a viable political party.

I think that Carter raises some important considerations. Many pro-life supporters have convinced themselves that Guliani is somehow the “lesser of two evils” but this simply does not appear to be true. So should we vote for Clinton because she would “do less damage?” As I’ve stated previously, I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate. I am the typical “one-issue” voter that so many cringe at. Abortion, for me, is a defining issue because it is an indicative issue. Someone’s position on abortion is directly related to a variety of other issues.

At this point, I think that the best option is to make sure that Guliani does not become the Republican candidate.

• Read Joe Carter’s original post
• Read Justin Taylor’s post “Hillary on Abortion”
• Read Justin Taylor’s post “Unelectable Hillary”
• Read God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life by Paul Kengor
• Read Why Pro-Life? Caring For the Unborn and Their Mothers by Randy Alcorn