500to50 is BACK!
Forgive me father, it
has been 32 days since my last confession…or blog entry.
Election day!
I’m glad this part of the process is over. However, I have a
feeling by the end of the night we will not
have a clear winner (it is noon as I type this on my lunch-hour.)
Many of my friends are single-issue
voters, that is, there is one position or issue that trumps all other
issues or qualifications of a candidate that will cause them to either vote, or
not-vote for a candidate. As a matter of fact, the candidate is irrelevant,
only the issue.
Here are (in my circle of friends) the top two single-issue
deal breakers being punted around on Facebook statuses:
1.) Abortion
2.) Same-Sex
Marriage
Today I’m going to write about Abortion. Tomorrow I’ll write about Same-Sex Marriage.
Abortion (under the auspices of “Reproductive Rights”) has
been the single-issue decider since Roe-V-Wade.
All a candidate has to do is state they are either “Pro-Life” or
“Pro-Choice” and instantly a group is lined-up behind them and another group is
lined-up against them. I would hazard to
say that many in both groups never even check on the rest of the candidates’
positions on anything else. “Why,” you ask? There is no reason to check any
other position. The matter has been settled on the single-issue.
The “Pro-Choice” issue has bled into other issues as well,
such as the requirements of health insurances, government agencies, even
private hospitals and healthcare providers to provide contraceptives and
abortions, often free of charge because it has been framed as a “right” by the
proponents.
Sooooo…..Now not only does a candidate have to espouse a
women’s right to choose an abortion (through all nine months of pregnancy and
beyond), they have to also work towards free contraceptives and abortion
services at every hospital, even faith-based or catholic hospitals to be “Pro
Choice.”
It also strongly affects the “Pro-Life” voter as well and
can cause some awkward moral predicaments.
Case in point: Todd Akin
Mr. Akins has made a series of telling statements about rape
and women in general that wave some really-big red flags that he (at best) is
highly insensitive to women and violence against women or (at worst) is an
old-school chauvinist.
Yet he is staunchly “Pro-Life.” He is more “Pro-Life” than most “Pro-Lifers.”
That fact alone will force the single-issue voter to affirm and support him,
and conversely, oppose the much maligned; Claire McCaskill. It is a pickle.
It also strongly and awkwardly affects the “Pro-Choice” voter.
Everyone on the planet is against babies having the base of
their skulls pried-open (without anesthetic) and their brains sucked out
through a small tube until they are dead.
Everyone in the entire world is against that, yet, to be truly and fully
“Pro-Choice” you must support abortion through nine months of pregnancy
including “partial-birth” abortion. The
“Pro-Choice” voter must support those who support that act, including our
current president.
So, what am I saying?
Our choice is between a man who believes some rape victims just “got
what they deserved” and a woman who wants babies’ brains sucked out? …I am kind
of saying that, yes.
I am like everyone else in the world…I don’t want either of
those things or either of those people, yet I don’t have another practical
choice. Sure, I could pick the libertarian candidate, write someone in, or
abstain, but what would that do?
It is this kind of dilemma that causes my heart to cry,
“Lord! Come quickly!”
Chris
(and “no” I’m not telling you if I voted for Todd Akin or
Claire McCaskill)
No comments:
Post a Comment