Thursday, October 07, 2004

Pro-Lifers for Kerry!?!?

I was talking to my wife last night when she dropped a bombshell on me: three people whose judgment I (at least partially) trusted are voting for John Kerry. These three people are conservative folks, and I think they are pro-life as well.

I don't get angry easily, but I when my wife told me the news I was furious. How could a pro-lifer vote for John Kerry? He has acknowldeged that he will do nothing to stem the tide of abortion in America. To him opposition is a religious matter that should not have an effect on public policy. To me (and to most pro-lifers) it is murder. Abortion is the single most important moral issue in America today. How can these people give their vote to someone who is not on their side regarding abortion?

I haven't spoken with them, but there are a few answers I predict they might give. Remember, these arguments assume the people in question are pro-lifers.

1) They like Kerry's economic policy better. To put it bluntly, this makes me sick. Since when did it become acceptable to place our bank accounts over the lives of the innocent? I would vote for a pro-life communist (if there ever was such an animal) before I would vote for a pro-abortion capitalist.

2) Bush is equally guilty of killing innocents when soldiers die in Iraq. This is dead wrong. Whenever someone signs up for the military it must be with the understanding that we could go to war at any time, whether said war is just or unjust. This doesn't justify soldiers dying in an unjust war, but those who enlist must know coming in that the possibility exists. In abortion the child has no choice in or knowldege of its own fate, therefore abortion is the worse of the two and must take precedence.

3) Bush is equally guilty of killing innocents when children die as casualties of his war. This is a modified version of the previous argument. I begin by pointing out that many terrorists have used children as shields in their campaigns, such as the Chechen rebels. Beyond that, it is a sad fact that children do die as casualties of war. However, there is a difference between children accidentally dying in missile strikes and the intentional killing of a child by an abortionist. Neither are good; the latter is far worse.

4) Kerry is better on other moral issues. First, I'd be curious as to what moral issue Kerry is better on, but I'll let that slide. Second, I'd ask if any of these moral issues have to do with the murder of innocent human beings. If not (perhaps they deal instead with the quality of life), then they must take a back seat.

I'm sure there are other answers these people will give me, or perhaps they will just try to avoid the topic. It doesn't matter, because they'll probably get an ear full from me if the topic comes up anyway. Pardon me, I have to go scream at the top of my lungs.

1 comment:

Johnny-Dee said...

Kerry's lack of moral clarity on abortion also affects his views on embryonic stem cell research. Bush, consistent with the pro-life position, has forbidden harvesting stem cells from human embryos. Kerry has made it clear he will lift that ban with no restrictions. This could usher in a slaughter larger than abortion on demand. This one issue is worth more to me than all the others put together, and it should be for anyone else who accepts the pro-life logic.