Living the
Gospel of Life -- Study Guide
Paragraph Thirty-one
Reflection
This paragraph speaks about the "political penalty" some may pay for
living out their pro-life convictions in public office. Yet it also points out
that "many voters are hungry for substance." Statistical polls in recent
elections have in fact demonstrated that taking a pro-life position on abortion
is advantageous for the candidate.
For example, a Wirthlin poll
taken immediately after the elections of 2000 asked voters whether the
abortion issue affected their vote. Some 42% said yes. Those who voted for the
candidate who opposed abortion were 23% and those who voted for the candidate
who favored abortion were 19%.
Two years later, after the mid-term elections of 2002, a
Zogby International/Buffalo News Nationwide poll showed that 40% of voters
voted for pro-life candidates or at least tended to favor them, while only 23%
voted for or favored the pro-choice candidates.
Another Zogby post-election poll
that year showed that 25% of all voters chose pro-life candidates while only 13%
chose pro-abortion candidates. When viewed just among those who voted on the
abortion issue, 61% chose the pro-life candidate, and only 31% chose the
pro-abortion candidate.
Discussion Questions
What are some examples of ways in which politicians witness to the
dignity of life -- or compromise that witness -- in the course of carrying out
their duties?
Table of Contents
|
