the pro life candidate

Walking around Ypsilanti, knocking on doors and talking with people about the upcoming election, I’ve met very few Bush supporters. Actually, in six days of canvassing, I’ve only met person who came right out and told me that she’d be voting for Bush. After chatting for a few minutes, she told me that he was getting her vote because he was morally opposed to the “murder of the unborn.” Realizing that I wasn’t going to be able to persuade her to consider Kerry, I decided to move on to the next house and said goodbye.

Later, when discussing it with my friend Jan, he suggested that I should have told her, “While John Kerry, having been raised Catholic, is personally opposed to abortion, he doesn’t feel as though it’s the place of the government to legislate what a woman can and cannot do with her own body.” While that would have clearly been a better way to have left it with her, I don’t think it would have caused her to question her choice though… Over the course of the past day, I’ve been wondering whether or not there’s anything that can be said to someone who’s voting on that one issue.

Well, in the course of my reading this evening, I stumbled across a bit of information that might give this woman, and other pro-lifers, reason to reconsider. According to an article that I just read, there’s compelling evidence that the rate of abortions in the U.S. has gone up under president Bush. Here’s a clip:

Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite “inability to afford a child” as their primary reason (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). In the Bush presidency, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Herbert Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate. And men who are jobless usually do not marry. In the 16 states, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises…

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers.

It seems so obvious, but it never occurred to me until I read this article that there could be a link between the thinning of the middle class and the number of abortions performed… “Culture of Life,” indeed.

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

16 Comments

  1. Andy
    Posted October 19, 2004 at 12:45 am | Permalink

    Another route might be to ask if they are Catholic. If so, then remind them that the Pope was against invading Iraq. That should put ’em in a bind. Then get a good Jesus quote, I dunno, about being your brother’s keeper or something?

  2. dorothy
    Posted October 19, 2004 at 4:37 am | Permalink

    it doesn’t matter what you say to them; most catholics are so hung up on the anti-choice rhetoric that their eyes glaze over and their brains shut down if you change the subject. i speak from experience—my sister is one of those lunatic catholics who don’t read newspapers or watch tv news. she relies on what the priests and nuns tell her to do. i was raised catholic but i outgrew it after i learned to read.

  3. Posted October 19, 2004 at 4:43 am | Permalink

    I’m still Catholic, even go to church every Sunday, but I’m a “cafeteria-style” Catholic and the Pope hates us. I say tough shit, since I think the Pope is living in the Middle Ages. Of course, I think it’s interesting that the Vatican has come out and said that you can vote for a Pro-Choice candidate if there are other issues that are also important to you, i.e., senseless killings in Iraq, etc., which to me indicated an understanding that GWB is evil, or rather being run by evil people.

  4. dorothy
    Posted October 19, 2004 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    george bush is the antichrist. just read sunday’s new york times article by susskind. our president is one scary fucker.

  5. stella
    Posted October 19, 2004 at 6:40 am | Permalink

    I have to agree with Dorothy on this one. And in reference to televangalists boosting for Bush, they apparently have to. Allegedly a secret deal was struck when the last president, ruler, what have you, (Maybe Pat Robertson, maybe Falwell, I cant keep em straight) resigned from his position as the Christian coalition leader, Bush became the secret new head in order to do exactly what he’s doing, Which is to create the conditions to bring on the Armegeddon. If you notice, Armegeddonists dont care about planetary stewardship, because they dont think they or their children and childrens children will have to live here…. so why not turn it into a toxic de-forested hell, it serves us right for not getting our own Jesus propelled rocket shoes

  6. Dave Morris
    Posted October 19, 2004 at 9:54 am | Permalink

    I think the article writer has an interesting argument. You could probably just as easily found a similar inverse proportion between abortion and the fluctuation of the stock market. The relationship between the ability to feed an extra mouth and having a job are apparent without the statistics. The more interesting statistic is that nearly half of the 46 million abortions each year worldwide are performed illegally. If you consider that it is illegal to have abortions in 40% of the world, then it is apparent that people are having them irregardless of the law and most likely at a greater risk to their personal health.

    I may be wrong on this, but it seems that the most effective way of controlling unwanted pregnancies is the education of women. Statistics show a definite connection between educated women and a lower population growth.

    A few years back, our ol buddy Pat Robertson, champion of the Pro-Life cause made some interesting comments on China.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/16/robertson.abortion/

    The connection between diminishing resources, population growth, and abortion is a very strong one. The idea of forced abortions is pretty disturbing irregardless of whether you are pro choice or pro life. It is not Pro Choice and it is not Pro Life. It is a whole new animal that is presented as the lesser of two evils.

    As far as convincing pro life voters, I think the article may have some success. Unfortunately, the pro life person in my life will not even acknowledge that the population is growing.

  7. dorothy
    Posted October 19, 2004 at 10:52 am | Permalink

    please don’t call it pro-life—it’s actually anti choice.

  8. Dave Morris
    Posted October 19, 2004 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Ok. I’ll make an attempt to call it anti choice, but only if I can refer to you as Judy.

  9. mark
    Posted October 19, 2004 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    How about we compromise and start calling abortions “Judy”s?

  10. Posted October 20, 2004 at 5:47 am | Permalink

    My friend had an interesting point about what a Anti-Choicer would say to the economics of abortion, i.e., I can’t afford to support the child. “They shouldn’t have been having sex then.” Unfortunately, I think he’s right.

    And Dorothy, I read that article. It scared me to death that this is the man leading the “free world.” I’d send it to my brother, but he’d just call it propaganda which is what he called the list of military service by Democrats and Republicans when my sister sent it to him. They will choose to believe what they want to believe and dismiss what they don’t as “propaganda.”

  11. Posted October 20, 2004 at 7:07 am | Permalink

    I like to ask the pro-lifers how many adopted children they have. Usually shuts them up.

    Dave Morris is right. Educating women is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

  12. Posted October 20, 2004 at 7:10 am | Permalink

    Being a recoving Catholic I know that a good talking-point is Capital Punshment. The republicans are vastly for it and it’s still killing according to the Catholics.

    The Catholic anti-war movement isn’t weak either. There may be a few buttons to press there.

  13. Posted October 21, 2004 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    In my mail yesterday was an envelope from the Michigan Catholic Conference. I almost threw it right in the trash w/o reading it, but I had to know. Yup, just what I thought, it was a pamphlet and letter telling me why I should support Proposal 2. I read one line to verify and then put it in the trash. Tonight I will dump kitty litter on it and put it out on the curb.

    Steven – I’m amazed at how many Pro-Life/Anti-Choice Catholics still support Capital Punishment. I take pride living in a state with no Capital Punishment, but am scared to death that all those Extreme Right Religious types will forget “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord.”

  14. Posted February 1, 2005 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    Babies are a separate being from their mothers, even in the womb. Does a women have a right to choose what to eat, and so on? Sure, but she can’t decide on killing her baby. Steven it sounds like you take pride in the fact that guilty adults aren’t punished and innocent babies are. You suggest that because women choose to have sex and then later find out they can’t afford the child they have the right to kill them? There are people lined up out the doors waiting to adopt a child, even ones with physical and mental complications. Why is Kerry opposed to abortion… because it kills innocent babies. So why does he thinks it’s okay for other people to kill their babies. Because he doesn’t want to tell them it’s wrong? That makes no sense.

  15. Posted February 2, 2005 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Kathleen, I will never understand christians who support capital punishment, but catholic christians?

    I suppose when you’re basing your reasoning on magic and historical fiction it’s difficult to defend.

    I find it ironic that an athiest like myself defends the position that we have more to lose from killing than mercy while American christians cry for blood.

    Would jesus promote the death penalty? No, I think he’d have shared a last meal or two with prisoners on death row.

    Drew, how many adopted children do you have?

  16. Posted February 2, 2005 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    Steven I do not support the death penalty. I am simply pointing out the irony that you think it is okay to put babies to death. Actually I’m not Catholic… I’m not in bondage to religion. I am a bondservant of Jesus Christ. You seem to have very sharp cutting comments. Forgive me if I have unnecessarily offended you. I truly mean that. I want to dig deep into the intellectual arguments. Tell me what in the Bible is faulty and give me factual support for it. I was not a Christian growing up. I was a skeptic. However you will probably believe what you choose and will think me crazy. Be fair to yourself and me and really look into the overwhelming evidence. If you really want to find good arguments I can point you to worth while books or explain them myself if I have the answer. Perhaps you will still think I am crazy but at least I will know that you have heard the arguments that have lead me to the conclusion that the Bible is trustworthy.

    I’m not sure what me personally having adopted children proves. I have several friends who have adopted and the facts are facts. People are trying to adopt, whether I have adopted children or not does not change that.

    Steven can I ask you an honest question? Would you consider yourself to be a good person?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Vinnie Header