I Will Not Vote In The 2024 Election And Here’s Why

I am an absolutist when it comes to pro-life. This is how I’ll be voting and why. This is just my opinion, nothing more.

When I go to the voting booth, there is one overriding issue on my mind that takes precedence over all the other problems – what is the candidate’s stance on abortion. In the past (2016, 2020), I voted “party” and not the man. I am not a fan of Donald Trump. However, since a brother in Christ posted information about a third-party candidate I am against, it caused me to justify my position on voting for a party. This is my final assessment and how I arrived at it.

I will not vote in this election. My reason, no party or person is genuinely pro-life if they take the stance “unless conception occurs by rape, incest, or affects the mother’s life.” I (and let’s keep this in mind; it’s me I’m talking about) do not believe that ANY instance justifies the murder of a child. Trump and the Republican party take a mixed or conditional view on the pro-life issue. Here are their stances.

Donald Trump:

Trump has consistently identified as pro-life, with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. He has appointed pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, which played a role in overturning Roe v. Wade. Trump has supported measures like the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which seeks to ban abortions after 20 weeks, and he has advocated for defunding Planned Parenthood. Despite these strong anti-abortion stances, Trump has suggested that the issue should ultimately be decided by individual states rather than at the federal level (Ballotpedia) (Wikipedia) .

The Republican Party:

The Republican Party’s stance on abortion is strongly pro-life, with significant emphasis on restricting access to abortion:

1. Overturning Roe v. Wade: The party celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which ended federal protections for abortion rights, allowing states to impose their own restrictions or bans.
2. National Abortion Ban: There is support within the party for a national abortion ban, with some factions pushing for legislation without exceptions for rape or incest. The Republican Study Committee’s budget proposal supports such a ban, along with other restrictive measures like banning mifepristone (a medication used for medical abortions) and rolling back policies that ensure veterans’ access to abortion care in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s health is at risk.
3. Defunding Planned Parenthood: The party aims to cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortion services, aligning with their broader goal to restrict abortion access and promote alternatives like adoption (The White House) (Ballotpedia).

In both instances (candidate & party), the pro-life stance (to which I am an absolutist) depends upon context. Pro-life seems to be in flux, and both party and candidate will adopt a pro-choice stance when it suits them.

From a purely logical standpoint, if a candidate or party claims to be “pro-life” but allows for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life, their stance can be viewed as internally inconsistent. Here’s the breakdown:

Logical inconsistency of the candidate:

Pro-Life Stance: This stance typically holds that all abortions are morally wrong because they involve ending an innocent human life. If a candidate truly adheres to this belief, they would logically oppose abortion in all circumstances, without exceptions.

Exceptions: Allowing exceptions for cases such as rape, incest, or the health of the mother means that the candidate acknowledges circumstances where abortion might be permissible. This acknowledgment suggests a belief that the morality or legality of abortion can depend on the context or circumstances, which conflicts with the absolute pro-life position.

Conclusion:

Pro-Choice Elements: By allowing exceptions, the candidate is effectively saying that abortion is permissible under certain conditions. This introduces a pro-choice element to their stance because it supports the right to choose abortion in specific situations.

Logical Label: Therefore, logically, a candidate who supports any exceptions to a pro-life stance is not entirely pro-life. Instead, they hold a mixed or conditional view on abortion.

Logical inconsistency of the party enforcing a candidate with a conditional view of pro-life:

Given the logical assessment that a pro-life stance should not allow for any exceptions, a political party that claims to be “pro-life” but endorses a candidate with a mixed or conditional view on abortion can be seen as inconsistent. Here are some points to consider:

Logical Inconsistency:

Mixed Messaging: The endorsement of a candidate with exceptions in their pro-life stance indicates that the party’s commitment to a strictly pro-life position is not absolute. This can lead to mixed messaging and confusion about the party’s true stance on abortion.

Compromise and Pragmatism: The endorsement suggests that the party is willing to compromise on its stated principles, possibly for strategic or pragmatic reasons. This could be to attract a broader base of voters or to support a candidate who aligns with the party on other significant issues.

Implications:

Dilution of Principles: Endorsing candidates with mixed views can dilute the party’s pro-life principles, making it harder to distinguish its stance from more moderate or pro-choice positions.

Electoral Strategy: It might reflect an electoral strategy where the party prioritizes winning elections and gaining political power over maintaining a strict adherence to its pro-life ideology.

Examples and Analysis:

Historical Context: Historically, both major U.S. political parties have sometimes endorsed candidates with views that do not perfectly align with their official platforms, reflecting a pragmatic approach to politics.

Current Context: The Republican Party, for instance, generally promotes a pro-life platform but has endorsed candidates with exceptions to their pro-life stance. This indicates a recognition of the complex views within its voter base and an attempt to balance ideological purity with electoral viability.

Conclusion:

Logically, a party that endorses a candidate with a mixed or conditional view on abortion while claiming to be pro-life exhibits a level of inconsistency. This inconsistency can be understood as a strategic compromise, reflecting the realities of political campaigning and governance.

Final thoughts

For this reason alone (and it is my choice), I will not vote in 2024. Again, I will not adopt the “vote the party and not the person” approach. I believe my position should be considered for individuals who take a pro-life approach to voting. If a candidate or political party is going to take the position of pro-life, there should not be conditions set on that ideology. We’re not talking about economics, infrastructure, or others group spheres of living, we’re talking about life. You are either for a baby’s life in all situations or for ending a baby’s life in certain situations.