If a candidate who supported terrorism asked for your vote, would you say, "I
disagree with you on terrorism, but where do you stand on other issues?"
I doubt it.
In fact, if a terrorism sympathizer presented him/herself for your vote, you
would immediately know that such a position disqualifies the candidate for
public office -- no matter how good he or she may be on other issues. The horror
of terrorism dwarfs whatever good might be found in the candidate's plan for
housing, education, or health care. Regarding those plans, you wouldn't even
ask.
So why do so many people say, "This candidate favors legal abortion. I
disagree. But I'm voting for this person because she has good ideas about health
care (or some other issue)."
Such a position makes no sense whatsoever, unless one is completely blind to
the violence of abortion. That, of course, is the problem. But we need only see
what abortion looks like, or read descriptions from the abortionists themselves,
and the evidence is clear. (USA Today refused to sell me space for an ad
that quoted abortionists describing their work because the readers would be
traumatized just by the words!)
Abortion is no less violent than terrorism. Any candidate who says abortion
should be kept legal disqualifies him/herself from public service. We need look
no further, we need pay no attention to what that candidate says on other
issues. Support for abortion is enough for us to decide not to vote for such a
person.
Pope John Paul II put it this way: "Above all, the common outcry, which is
justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to
home, to work, to family, to culture -- is false and illusory if the right to
life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other
personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination" (Christifideles
Laici, 1988).
False and illusory. Those are strong and clear words that call
for our further reflection.
"I stand for adequate and comprehensive health care." So far, so good. But as
soon as you say that a procedure that tears the arms off of little babies is
part of "health care," then your understanding of the term "health care" is
obviously quite different from the actual meaning of the words. In short, you
lose credibility. Your claim to health care is "illusory." It sounds good, but
is in fact destructive, because it masks an act of violence.
"My plan for adequate housing will succeed." Fine. But what are houses for,
if not for people to live in them? If you allow the killing of the children who
would otherwise live in those houses, how am I supposed to get excited by your
housing project?
It's easy to get confused by all the arguments in an election year. But if
you start by asking where candidates stand on abortion, you can eliminate a lot
of other questions you needn't even ask.
For more election related articles and information, visit
www.priestsforlife.org/elections
