Why The President's View On Abortion Matters

I'm tired of it too!  Every other post or link is about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  I have good news, this is about neither.  That said, many who are very dissatisfied with the two candidates that represent the two main parties in the United States, as I am, have begun to consider voting for a third party, as I have.  Many, who I know are pro-life, have considered voting for Gary Johnson the Libertarian candidate.  Gary Johnson is pro-choice, and it matters, a lot.  Let me explain why.

At least in theory, Presidents don't write law.  Our current president, and many in the past, have really stretched the power of the executive branch in this regard.  Nevertheless, this is at least true in theory and mostly true in practice.  So, if a president can't write law, why does their view on abortion and life matter?  That's a really good question, but I would like to point out that they can't determine budgets either.  That means they can't write new tax law or control spending according to the constitution.  They can't make treaties without the "advise and consent" of congress nor can they declare war.  Yet, a president's view on all of these things matters.

On the abortion issue it matters for several reasons.  The first is that it speaks to their understanding of life and the Declaration of Independence.  Scientifically there is no longer any doubt that an embryo is both human and living.  Though many pro-choice advocates were able to cast doubt on this scientific fact, once upon a time, this is no longer the case.  I will not present these arguments here, but they are readily available for anyone interested.  If this is the case, which it is, then how does this relate to the Declaration of Independence?  It is the Declaration that says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  Life is the first right listed and the most basic in the Declaration, and rightly so.  When this is not recognized by a candidate for president it ought to make you wonder about how they view and understand the rest of our rights.

There is another major reason this matters and it is not completely unrelated to the previous one.  In some sense it is one of the ways the previous reason plays out.  It is related to Supreme Court Justices.  The Supreme Court is not suppose to be another way to legislate, it is suppose to be the place where opinions are offered relating to the constitutionality of various issues.  It has, of course, become more legislative in nature.  The president appoints Supreme Court Justices. Since the "advice and consent" of the senate is required for such an appointment it would be easy to compromise in this area when appointing a justice. 

The issue of life is not an issue where Christians or non-Christian pro-life voters should compromise.  I can compromise on a lot of things in a candidate, but this is not one of them; this is both because of my Christian convictions and because of what it says about how a president will view and approach other issues.  

---