The ever-lively and independent Mark Shea explains his refusal to vote for either major presidential candidate thus :
Millions of babies will be killed whichever of these guys is elected. One will zealously try to make sure the maximum number die in sacrifice to the Culture of Adult Desire. The other (an active participant in the Culture of Adult Desire in his own way) basically is interested in appearing pro-life, but has absolutely no intention of overturning Roe. He wants the status quo, as virtually all GOP pols do, because it’s useful for playing prolifers for suckers.So: since I am faced with *two* candidates who want the current regime to continue, I choose not to vote for either.
This seems far too pat. First of all, to back up his characterization of McCain he links to an atypical and rather confusing statement from nine years ago. More recently, McCain has said clearly (as he has said throughout his political career) that he thinks Roe should be overturned.
But even we could prove that this statement and all previous statements like it were just meant to manipulate, would Shea’s position make complete sense? Isn’t he saying, to put it plainly, that one cannot make a significant choice between bad and worse, between tolerating evil and promoting it?
And for all his cynicism about “GOP pols” could he really doubt that McCain’s nominee to the Supreme Court would be a conservative interpreter of the Constitution, and thus a good deal less friendly to Roe than Obama’s? McCain might give us another Anthony Kennedy, but Obama would give us another Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Surely that, at least, is a difference that makes a difference.
