Statements vs. Impact

 Greg Koukl

      Since there is no middle ground on abortion—“choice” always means a dead child—then it’s critically important we make decisions at the polls that go beyond token moral gestures (something that looks right, but has no impact).  We must make choices that have the greatest chance of actually saving children.

      The question we’re faced with is this:  If we were forced to choose between looking virtuous but having no further effect, or appearing ignoble but accomplishing some good, which path should we take?  When we must choose one or the other, are we obliged by God to make a moral statement or to have a moral impact?

      Jesus condemned Jews who abused the practice of Corban (Mark 7:11), a pledge to God that appeared righteousness, but helped no one.  Admittedly, the motives of pro-lifers voting “consistently pro-life” are different from those who used the practice of Corban as a religious cloak for avarice, but the result is the same:  moral statements with no moral impact.

      In a senatorial election in California, both front-runners were pro-abortion, but for the Republican candidate, Matt Fong, partial-birth abortion went too far.  His Democratic opponent, Barbara Boxer, had no such scruples.  It was a close race, with many pro-lifers abandoning Fong and instead casting their votes with unelectable candidates who were “consistently pro-life.”  Consequently, Boxer prevailed.

      Sometimes elections don’t give us the ideal pro-life candidate; we’re forced to choose between candidates with less than perfect positions.  Yet one of them will take office and have an impact on the pro-life public policy in our nation.  Almost always, one is a better choice than the other.  Yet some pro-lifers opt out of exercising their vote because the perfect pro-life candidate isn’t on the ballot.

      Those whose “conscience vote” guarantee that a hard-core pro-abortionist is elected could benefit from the moral insight of Pope Benedict XVI:

According to the principles of Catholic morality, an action can be considered licit [morally permissible] whose object and proximate effect consist in limiting an evil insofar as possible.  Thus, when one intervenes  in a situation judged evil in order to correct it for the better, and when the action is not evil in itself, such an action should be considered not as the voluntary acceptance of the lesser evil, but rather as the effective improvement of the existing situation, even though one remains aware that not all evil present is able to be eliminated for the moment.[1]

      In other words, it’s better to choose someone who is committed to eliminating some of the evil, than passively contributing to the victory of one who is not committed to eliminating any of the evil but, on the contrary, will promote it. 

      This is not a compromise.  This is good moral thinking.  It’s having an impact rather than merely making a statement.

---