In the volatile theater of modern politics, candidates often find themselves navigating a minefield of moral issues, searching for a rhetorical “niche” that will secure the most votes without alienating the center. However, when it comes to the issue of abortion, many politicians commit a fundamental strategic and philosophical blunder: they attempt to personalize morality. By shifting a claim of objective truth into the realm of subjective preference, these candidates do not merely soften their image; they effectively sabotage the very foundation of the pro-life position.
The Blunder of “Personally Pro-Life”
A recent and illustrative example of this error can be found in the campaign of Chris Dudley, a former NBA player running for governor in Oregon. After months of campaigning as a supporter of abortion access, Dudley attempted to “set the record straight” to appeal to a pro-life constituency, stating, “Personally, I am pro-life”. While this phrase is intended to sound moderate and respectful of differing views, it is a catastrophic logical error.
To say one is “personally” pro-life is to place abortion in the category of likes or dislikes—relegating a grave moral question to the same level of importance as one’s favorite flavor of ice cream. Abortion is not wrong because of a personal sentiment; it is right or wrong based on objective arguments regarding the status of the unborn and the nature of human rights. When a politician uses this language, they “give away the farm,” admitting that their opposition to abortion is merely a private feeling that carries no weight in the public square.
The Contradiction of “Safe, Legal, and Rare”
This rhetorical trap is not a new phenomenon. Over thirty years ago, Bill Clinton famously campaigned on the platform that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”. This phrasing was a masterclass in subjective framing. By using the word “want,” Clinton signaled that his opposition was a personal matter rather than an objective truth.
Furthermore, the word “rare” creates an insurmountable logical problem. If there is nothing objectively wrong with abortion, why should its frequency trouble us? We do not demand that tonsillectomies, wart removals, or eyebrow pluckings be “rare,” because these are morally neutral medical or cosmetic procedures. By suggesting that abortion should be rare, the politician implicitly admits that something is wrong with the procedure, yet by insisting it remain “legal,” they refuse to follow that moral fact to its logical conclusion. They have replaced moral categories with subjective opinion categories.
Objective Morals vs. Subjective Preferences
The public often confuses sentiments with moral claims. When we state that “it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being,” we are not expressing a dislike; we are making an objective truth claim. An objective truth is independent of feelings and remains true regardless of who agrees with it.
Consider the examples of spousal abuse or slavery. It would be absurd for a candidate to say, “I am personally opposed to spousal abuse, but I don’t think it’s my place to impose that view on others,” or “I want slavery to be safe, legal, and rare”. In these cases, the wrongness of the act is independent of personal preference. One might even “enjoy” a wrong act—such as a man enjoying an affair or a thief enjoying a joyride in a stolen Corvette—but that enjoyment speaks nothing to the act’s inherent rightness or wrongness.
This distinction is further clarified by examining morally neutral preferences, such as a dislike for a specific type of car. One might “passionately dislike” a Toyota Prius due to its performance in cold weather, but it would be wrong to legislate against owning one. The liking or disliking of a car is morally neutral, but the intentional killing of a human being is not. Pro-lifers must call a “timeout” when critics try to treat the destruction of the unborn as a mere matter of taste.
The Failure of Modern Debates
The inability to distinguish between preference and objective truth was on full display during the 2012 vice-presidential debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden. The moderator framed the issue by asking Ryan to speak to the “deeply personal and deeply religious issue of abortion”. By accepting this framing, the candidates allowed the debate to be defined as a clash of private feelings.
Joe Biden utilized this framework to argue that while his religion taught him life begins at conception, he would not “impose” that personal religious matter on a plurality of the public. This argument is “suicidal.” If Biden means it is objectively wrong to impose views, he has just used an objective moral standard to argue against objective moral standards. If he means it is only his personal opinion that it is wrong to impose views, there is no reason for the public to follow his lead. This “personally opposed” posture is nothing more than a strategic ploy to avoid the moral merits of the argument.
The Lincoln Precedent: You Have No Right to Do Wrong
The argument that we should not legislate morality because of “choice” is a recurring theme in political rhetoric. Some even argue that because God gives humans the “choice” to sin, the government should not interfere with the “choice” to have an abortion. This is an “utterly stupid” argument that no one would apply to child abuse or theft.
Abraham Lincoln addressed this exact fallacy during his debates with Stephen Douglas regarding slavery. Douglas argued that each territory should have the “choice” to vote slavery up or down. Lincoln aptly replied that one cannot claim a “right” to a choice if the act itself is morally wrong. You do not have a right to do what is wrong, especially when that act involves the intentional harm of another human being.
The Seven-Second Solution
Most politicians are not trained philosophers or apologists, and they often “muddy the waters” by saying too much. In a media environment where soundbites are king, a candidate needs a concise, objective answer that can be delivered in less than seven seconds.
Instead of the “personally pro-life” trap, a politician should simply state: “I oppose abortion because it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings”. They should put a “big solid period” at the end of that sentence and refuse to be led down “rabbit trails” regarding healthcare or religious imposition. This statement is clear, objective, and does not reduce the issue to a preference. While a rare few, such as Marco Rubio or JD Vance, may have the “apologetics chops” to counter-punch more extensively, most should stick to this core, unassailable claim.
Conclusion: Standing for Truth in a Relativistic Age
We live in a culture that often despises objective truth claims, preferring a relativism where “claiming to be right” is seen as a social offense. The spirit of the age suggests that we should never “impose” our views, yet the relativist who makes that claim is implicitly imposing their own objective worldview on everyone else.
As advocates for life, we must refuse to ground our case in the shifting sands of personal sentiment. We must be clear: Truth is objective, not personal. Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on the gender, identity, or likes of the person making them. If we wish to remain “truth-tellers” in the public square, we must insist that the wrongness of killing the unborn is a moral fact that demands recognition in our laws and in our hearts.