Trump, Dingoes, and the Pro-Life Judges Argument

Trump, Dingoes, and the Pro-Life Judges Argument July 25, 2016

As some of you will already know, I’ve consistently refused to support or vote for Donald Trump on moral grounds, even now that he’s secured the GOP nomination for president. I’ve heard very few remotely convincing reasons to “hold my nose” and pull the lever for The Donald. The sole exception is the “Trump says he’s pro-life, so you have a duty to support him over Hillary and save lives” argument. Let me just make it clear that I don’t find this argument finally convincing, in this form or any other. However, it does have a certain plausibility that’s won over many friends and other Christian writers I respect, especially in light of what Hillary Clinton will likely do once in office. Here, briefly, are the reasons why I think it fails as a reason for supporting the Republican nominee:

1.) Trump has done exactly nothing his entire life to indicate a principled, pro-life position. In fact, he has said precisely the opposite, calling himself “very, very pro-choice,” and praising Planned Parenthood. So the sole evidence for his newfound pro-life convictions is his word, given precisely when he decided to run for president in a predominantly pro-life party. How certain are you that he is telling the truth, and not just saying what he needs to say to get elected? Is Trump someone you’d consider a truthful person?

2.) Pro-life judicial nominees by even a highly conservative president are by no means a guarantee. Even Ronald Reagan was 2 for 3 when it came to Supreme Court justices (he nominated Justice O’Connor). How likely do you think it is that Trump, a man who has shown zero pro-life conviction until recently, doesn’t appear to understand the philosophical arguments against abortion, and has spent his life submerged in sexual revolution morality, will do as well as Reagan? How likely do you think a pro-life outcome is compared with, say, his nominating old buddies from New York who will vote like Kennedy? Be honest.

3.) With all this in mind, does the remote possibility that Trump will move the judicial ball down the court on abortion outweigh a.) the fact that he is in almost all other respects a vulgar, unstable, and politically liberal individual, b.) has openly threatened to torture prisoners, kill women and children, c.) has shown a shocking disdain for women in general, and responds to female critics with leering sexual obscenity, and d.) the likely devastating effect he will have on conservatism in the long run, tarnishing its moral image and undermining its political prospects for decades?

Donald_Trump_August_19,_2015The “he will appoint pro-life judges” argument has been used to great effect in the past to rally conservative troops behind lackluster nominees. In many cases, it was credible. But in this case, I just don’t see it. It amounts to a leap of faith based on nothing but the say-so of a man who has built his career on lying. It’s like leaving your baby with a dingo because he says he’ll treat her better than the wolf. The potential payoff is dubious, at best. And the cost is enormous. So I’m sorry, but I’m just not buying it this time.

For a more thorough breakdown of the subject, see Matthew Lee Anderson’s piece at “Mere Orthodoxy.” 

 

Photo: Wikimedia Commons, Michael Vadon


Browse Our Archives