The politics of abortion (my first real post)

I have been inspired to post my first official blog. The inspiration: the intersection of abortion and politics.

I just read a blog written by a friend from my law school days. He noted in his blog that he intends to vote for Obama in the coming election. This baffled me, as I know he opposes abortion. I've come across this paradox before, and I still do not understand why it exists. What makes a pro-life supporter vote for a pro-choice candidate? I can think of only two justifications, neither of which make much sense at the end of the day. The two justifications are: (1) abortion is just one of many issues to weigh in the balance (with other issues taking precedence over abortion) and/or (2) a President's views on abortion do not significantly affect the laws regulating abortion. (If anyone can think of another reason, please comment.)

As to abortion being simply one issue to weigh in the balance of many issues, I fail to see the logic. If you are truly against abortion, it is more than just one of the many issues to weigh in the balance when deciding for whom to vote. Instead, it is the preeminent issue of our day, just as slavery was the preeminent issue in the early days of our country. When Lincoln was running for president, pro-slavery advocates reasoned that slaves were property; therefore, they were not entitled to the protections afforded to persons under the Constitution. In hindsight, that reasoning is ridiculous and abusive. Similarly, pro-choice advocates today reason that unborn children are not yet persons entitled to Constitutional protections. In the words of Justice Blackmun in the Roe v. Wade opinion, "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." This modern reasoning is just as ridiculous and abusive as the pro-slavery reasoning used 150 years ago. In some ways it is even more abusive, as slaves at least had some value as "property." Unborn children in America have no value, so their lives can be aborted. With this in mind, a modern pro-life voter's assertion that abortion is just one of many issues is analogous to a early 1800's anti-slavery voter's assertion that slavery is just one of many issues to weigh in the balance. Such an assertion is foolish at best.

An argument that the President will have little impact on the laws regulating abortion is similarly unimpressive. All one has to do is look at our current Supreme Court. On the pro-life side are Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and (sometimes) Kennedy. On the pro-choice side are Justices Ginsburg, Bryer, and Souter. Roberts and Alito were Bush (the younger) appointments. Scalia and Kennedy were Reagan appointments. Thomas and Souter were Bush (the elder) appointments. Breyer and Ginsburg were Clinton appointments. Stevens was a Ford appointment. With the exception of Souter and Stevens (and occasional departures by Kennedy), these appointments all follow the expected abortion line. And I am sure that this line would be even more pronounced if Circuit Court judges were included. In other words, modern precedent indicates that a President significantly impacts the status of abortion in America through his judicial appointments. Thus, how can a pro-life voter support a pro-choice candidate? Am I missing something here?