Everything in the blogging world says not to go Political. But when I shared this blog with family and friends I opened my heart and have shared many things about myself, so why not share views on politics? And really like everyone else politics have been on our minds these last couple of weeks. It was written by my husband after we had a long conversation about our ideas issues beliefs following some things that were said at the Democratic National Convention. And well if you really knew me you would know that I have strong political opinions that I love to talk about, however I bite my tongue so as to not start controversy. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican (I am neither) it is something that we all think about and hear about. It's an opinion which we are all entitled to and I wanted to share our way of viewing 'Pro-Life'.
Moral conservatives have to draw a
line somewhere when it comes to sin. Many sins that are laid out in the Bible
are not illegal in today’s world. You cannot be imprisoned or fined for lust or
gluttony, but you can for theft or murder. In the 1920’s, moral conservatives
drew the line at the consumption of alcohol. Today, some draw the line at DNA
and stem-cell research or at euthanasia or at gay marriage while others just
consider these to be sins that do not affect them personally and therefore
should not necessarily be illegal. But there is one issue that few moral
conservatives will dare to cross: abortion. So as I watched the Democratic
National Convention, a question came to mind. Why would a Catholic nun choose
to take part in a convention run by people who are notoriously pro-choice? In
searching for the answer to this question, I began to think…
I decided that I am indeed pro-life
in that I am not for abortion. But I do not understand why so many people would
vote for a politician just for the mere trait that he is absolutely against
abortion. For me, the pro-life label extends to all life and not just the
unborn. Why would I vote for a politician that draws his line of pro-life at
the moment when a baby is born and then disregards the other facets of postpartum
life?
The core of the pro-life argument
is that a fetus should be protected by the government because a fetus is
helpless. But when a politician makes plans to cut spending on education so
that he can provide greater tax cuts for the rich, he is preventing the poor
from being able to help themselves out of poverty. So he is willing to provide
government protection for unborn babies and unwilling to provide government
protection for poor and helpless people. If being pro-life is helping the
helpless then this politician is not pro-life.
Pro-life is not allowing the poor
to get poorer. Politicians that turn their backs on the poor and want to cut
65% of the spending from the social safety net are opening the door for an
increase in child hunger. A study from the Boston Medical
Center reports that
malnutrition in children under age 3 is up 6% since 2007 and that the majority
of those children were in families that were already on food stamps and WIC. So
even the current safety net is not strong enough and definitely should not be
cut by any amount. An aborted child is no different than a 3-month-old that
dies of malnutrition because his mother was malnourished and could not produce
milk and she could not afford formula. It is the responsibility of the
politician to keep policies in place that do not allow this to happen. I would
rather die than see my own children suffering from hunger. This is not
pro-life.
Pro-life is not sending our soldiers
to war to protect our financial interests in the non-renewable energy resource
market. Since 2003 in Iraq,
there have been nearly 5,000 American military casualties and over 100,000
civilian casualties. This is in no way pro-life.
Pro-life is not allowing gun
regulations to be lessened. Three months ago in Gilbert, a neo-nazi man was
able to purchase an assault rifle to independently patrol the border with.
Instead, after an argument with his girlfriend, he used it against her, her daughter,
and her 15-month-old granddaughter. This is just one story. There are countless
others: in a sold-out movie theater, at a constituent meeting in a grocery
store parking lot, a kid walking home with candy in his pocket, a university, a
high school, etc. Though the politician is not responsible for the actions of
these severely mentally disturbed people, he is an enabler in allowing them to
arm themselves. I understand the argument that deregulating gun sales would
allow more gun carrying civilians who could stop the crazed gunman in his
tracks before he can kill the masses. So should we have allowed the 15-month-old
girl to have a concealed weapon so that she could have shot the man before he
opened fire on her? And this leads me to believe that many morally conservative
Christians, especially those who lobby for gun control regulations to be even
less restrictive than they are now, must tend to ignore Matthew 26:52. This is
not pro-life.
Pro-life is not administering
capital punishment. Generally this practice is reserved for the most ruthless
of murderers. However, the death penalty is in essence the government choosing
to end a life. For this one, John 8:7 comes to mind. Since Roe v. Wade, more
than 1,300 prisoners have been executed in the US. This is not pro-life.
Pro-life is not allowing healthcare
to be beyond anyone’s reach. I have seen the station wagon outside of the
radiation therapy clinic. It is owned by a patient and it is packed with all of
her belongings. I highly doubt that is where she lived before she was diagnosed
with cancer. So technically healthcare was within her reach. But is extending
her time on earth by a few years only to do it in such poverty really a life
worth living? Perhaps ten years ago a doctor wrote on her chart that her
cholesterol was a bit high and now she cannot get insurance because of a preexisting
condition. Or perhaps she did not want to burden her surviving family members
with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. I wonder if the
politician feels that it is better to turn his back on this woman than to
support government policies that would help regulate what he thinks should be a
pure capitalist market. Denying healthcare to an individual with a preexisting
condition so that healthcare can be a profitable market and not an individual
right is pro-money, not pro-life. Transitioning Medicare from government
control to for-profit corporate control at the expense of seniors with limited
income is also pro-money, not pro-life.
I understand that all politicians
(and everyday people, for that matter) demonstrate selective morality: Bill
Clinton fought for the poor but then dishonored his wife; George W. Bush fought
for mentally challenged grade school students but then sent us to fight an oil war;
Obama fought for health care and then chose to assassinate a foreign leader.
But I cannot understand why certain politicians can gather so much respect
simply by standing on a pro-life platform. I cannot trust a politician who
claims that he is pro-life and then demonstrates complete disregard for lives
of those that have already been born. If a politician says that he is pro-life
then maybe he should actually be pro-life.
No comments:
Post a Comment