“The perfect should not be the enemy of good,” the saying goes. This comes to mind when hearing about a lamentable reality: Some pro-life Americans, upset about what many consider President Donald Trump’s “softening” abortion stance, are now reluctant to support him. Some may vote a pro-life ticket, if and where an option; others may not vote at all. Yet is this the best decision for our country or even the pro-life cause itself? My answer is no on both counts. I’ll explain why.

Before proceeding, I’d like to point out that I’m not one of those PLINOs (Pro-lifers in Name Only) who may render prescriptions such as what follows because, in their heart of hearts, they’re not authentically pro-life. Were I king, prenatal infanticide would be illegal — and, yes, this includes in cases of rape or incest. (Logically, you lose the debate upon saying otherwise. The contrary position involves the idea, after all, that you can kill an innocent unborn child because of the circumstances of his conception. Accepting this tacitly negates the “All human life is sacred” argument.) And what of the life of the mother?

While direct prenatal infanticide is never morally permissible, operative here is a principle called the “law of double effect.” In other words, you are allowed to take actions necessary to save the mother’s life if it’s legitimately endangered. If this results in the child’s death, this is known in theological/philosophical circles as “a negative unintended consequence of a morally licit action.”

So that’s the standard that, again, I’d apply were I king. But I’m not king.

I relate the above to make clear that my pro-life stance is a sincere and well considered position resulting from study and pursuit of Truth. As you can see, I even called “abortion” prenatal infanticide” — precisely because I know what the act is and want to emphasize its reality. Nevertheless, I happily, enthusiastically, robustly and unabashedly support Trump. And it’s imperative, my pro-life friends, that you do, too. Why?

Reasons, Not Rationalizations

The first principle to consider when choosing a candidate is that, as famed German leader Otto von Bismarck put it, politics is “the art of the possible.” It’s not the art of we get what we want 100 percent, right now, no questions asked — but of “the possible.” And what’s possible right now is Donald Trump or Kamala Harris.

Consider an analogy, too. You have a child in desperate need of an operation and four options. Choosing Dr. A would give your child a 50 to 60 percent chance of survival. Dr. B would give him a five percent chance. Dr. C would give him a 100 percent chance, but there’s a problem: He has been disallowed from practicing medicine and has no access to the equipment and instruments necessary for the operation. So he could do a great job, but can’t. The fourth option is that you walk away, disgusted, and dispense with your child’s best possible chance at life. Which would you choose?

Obviously, Dr. A correlates with Trump, Dr. B with Harris, Dr. C with a pro-life-ticket candidate, and option four with not voting. It’s plain, too, that most of you would choose Dr. A in the analogy. So why, in reality, would we give America’s unborn children any less of a chance?

Now, some pro-lifers are upset that Trump said he wouldn’t sign a national prenatal infanticide ban. First, however, realize that for decades, a major rallying cry when seeking Roe v. Wade’s overturning was that “abortion is a state issue.” Is it really prudent to do a 180 on this — now?

Also consider that murdering someone outside the womb is almost always a state charge. So should we really seek a different standard for the murder of people inside the womb — at this moment?

Some may now counter that, tragically, many states not only don’t see fit to prohibit prenatal infanticide, but actually facilitate it. But this gets at the point: If we can’t currently effect authentically pro-life prenatal infanticide bans in even most conservative states — and we can’t — why would we think it would fly nationally?

Another analogy is instructive here, too. Would we send troops on a suicide mission, that could only succeed in a hypothetical world far removed from our current reality, merely because it “felt” like a righteous act? As Just War Doctrine informs, two prerequisites for a just war are that the proposed action must, a) do more good than harm and, b) have a serious chance of success. (And politics is bloodless warfare; why, “campaign” is actually a military term.) Pushing for a national prenatal infanticide ban right now simply doesn’t meet these criteria. It is a political suicide mission — all downside, no upside.

The Other Pro-life Issues

Now, I do agree with the great Ambassador Alan Keyes, who once called prenatal infanticide “the slavery issue of our time.” Nonetheless, it’s simply a reality (and not a PLINO statement, not from King Duke, anyway) that it’s not the only pro-life issue.

First, of course, there’s euthanasia. Canada has already been called “a world leader” in it, allowing assisted suicide for apparently frivolous reasons. And our Left, as represented by Kamala Harris, would visit such standards upon us, too — if given enough power.

Then consider the following:

The misguided COVID lockdowns, instituted almost entirely by Democrats, resulted in 100,000 excess deaths a year in 2020 and ’21 alone, a 2022 study found. 

Fentanyl deaths have increased during the Biden-Harris administration, numbering 250,000 during their tenure. And while their opening of the southern border isn’t entirely to blame, it certainly exacerbates the problem.

Criminality-facilitating Democrat prosecutors, and the miscreant aliens the administration has allowed into our country, are responsible for much increased murder and mayhem.

The disastrous Biden-Harris Afghanistan withdrawal resulted in at least 200 deaths, according to the left-wing Washington Post. 

Euphemistically and incorrectly termed “child gender transitioning,” entirely the handiwork of liberal Democrats such as Harris, results in irreparable damage to young bodies. It will assuredly lead to greater mortality, too, as there are strong indications that those undergoing sexual-distortion surgeries have higher suicide rates.

Harris and her chicken-hawk, warmonger co-ideologists have been inching us closer to nuclear war with Russia. How this imperils life, on a massive scale, is obvious.

Realize as well that the above is just a short list. The bottom line is that regardless of the details, bad policies generally lead to increased mortality. Bad trees don’t yield good fruit. 

The Soul of the Issue

What of our fruits, however, and where they’ll get us? Late radio host Rush Limbaugh once correctly pointed out that pro-life people won’t bend on the prenatal infanticide issue (nor should they, on the principles) partially because they believe their immortal souls are at stake. Yet there’s a big difference between supporting prenatal infanticide and supporting a candidate who, though imperfect on the issue, is far and away the best option. God knows our minds and hearts, and He gave us intellect and free will. He expects us, too, to use our intellects. He expects us to be, as Jesus put it, as “harmless as doves” — but “as shrewd as snakes.”

And what, does shrewdness dictate here, is best for life, our country, and everything on November 5? It informs that in “the art of the possible,” the best choice by far is the man who wrote The Art of the Deal, not the party specializing in the art of the steal.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., follow him on X (formerly Twitter), MeWe or Gettr or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Image generated by AI.

Source link