"Voting Issue Not Absolute
Frequently in recent weeks, some pro-life advocates have been trying to
tell Catholic Post readers how they must vote in the coming election, if
they are "truly pro-life" concerning abortion. The writers make some
good and essential points.
Almost always, however, they fail to address a major, long overdue, and
increasingly obvious consideration in our struggle to to respect the
dignity of human life.
The time has come when we should be beyond thinnking in terms of
electing figureheads and images, and seriously aim at getting results.
The reality, which even George W. Bush acknowledged early on, is that
no president has the power to reverse or significantly weaken Roe v.
Wade, at least in the present and foreseeable climate. In spite of
occasional declarations of support for pro-life advocates, he has given
it little serious attention.
Some claim that we need a president who will appoint pro-life Supreme
Court justices. Yet, of the six justices recently appointed by
presumably pro-life presidents--George Bush, Sr. and Ronald Reagan--
most have often left pro-life advocates feeling dismayed, even betrayed
, by many of their decisions.
This ought to prompt us to look more closely at our genuine options and
ask the realistic question: Which candidate, which party platform,
offers the greatest hope to reduce the number of abortions? What do
pregnant mothers, especially those in troubled circumstances, need most
to keep them from seeing abortion as their only option?
The answer is not difficult. Decent education for their children,
assured family healthcare, reasonable opportunities for decent housing,
tax policies that address the needs of medium and lower income families,
a realistic minimum wage, safe neighborhoods--these are unquestionably
high on the list.
Other life issues also touch on family security: protecting the
environment for our children and grandchildren, resolving the financial
and personnel drain in Iraq, extensive reform of our criminal justice
system.
Put all these together, and the issue is not nearly as absolute and neat
as some would like to claim. Judging solely from the record and
announced priorities and plans of the candidates, isn't it
understandable that many good people, including faithful and committed
Catholics, cannot accept the claim that the voting obligation this year
is black and white? (The only time the abortion rate has lowered much in
recent years was during the Clinton administration. Was it because of
the above possibilities gave these mothers hope?)
None of this is to deny that a candidate's voting record on abortion
should be critically examined. Nor is it to suggest that other evils
are "proportionate" to the evil of killing unborn human life.
Neither of these, however, alters the political realities. If we are
serious about reducing abortions, and creating a climate in which they
are less likely to take place, those social needs and concerns are where
we need to begin the climb. We need to stop chasing after a magic
political bullet and work to change what distressed women and families face.
At the very least, it should give some humble pause to those who condemn
Catholic voters who say: I am absolutely pro-life and because I am I
cannot in good conscience vote for what they tell me is the only
pro-life candidate.
Father John Diezen
Peoria"
this came out just when i felt as if i were the only pro-life,
pro-embryonic-stem cell research (by means of using leftover in-vitro
fertilized eggs), Catholic, Democrat out here.
--
Joan E. Blessington Snyder 51/13
http://www.pwnkle.com/jes/jes_web/index.htm
<[log in to unmask]>
"Hang tough...........no way through it but to do it."
Chris-in-the-Morning (Northern Exposure)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
