Pro-Life Tidbits In The First Debate

In the just-published Summer 2004 issue of Action News, you will find an article about WomanCare Services, a new pregnancy resource center founded by veteran counselor Laura Nelson. If you would like to contact WomanCare Services for information on their Nov. 14 Respect Life banquet with speaker Joe Scheidler, or to volunteer or offer a donation, call them at 708-795-6000.

First Presidential Debate

Most commentators are calling last night’s first presidential debate a draw. John Kerry may have looked more presidential than he has so far in the campaign, but George Bush avoided the kind of major stumble that would have really helped Kerry. We’ll see in the next few days whether Bush will maintain his narrow lead.

The only moment of the debates of special interest to the pro-life voter was when Kerry, accusing Bush of ignoring the evidence on a variety of issues, said, “[H]e’s not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research.”

This is a telling statement. It shows first of all that Kerry doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to embryonic stem cell research. As reported recently on the Action News Hotline, there is no proof that any therapies will ever result from this research, whereas research into adult stem cells is yielding practical results right now.

But perhaps more importantly, Kerry’s comment shows how fiercely he supports embryonic stem cell research — so fiercely that he will bring up the issue in a debate on foreign policy. We can expect him to make much more of the issue — and continue to cite imaginary scientific evidence, while ignoring the moral questions completely — during the October 8th and 13th debates.

Is George Bush Pro-Life?

Speaking of the presidential election, we have received a few angry e-mails denouncing the Pro-Life Action League and the pro-life movement in general for supporting George Bush. To clarify, as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, the Pro-Life Action League does not endorse or support candidates for political office, though we are perfectly within our rights to publicize the candidates’ positions on the life issues.

The angry e-mailers claim that George Bush is pro-life in name only, citing variously his waging of the War in Iraq, support for capital punishment, and executive order allowing certain lines of embryonic stem cells to be used in research.

We don’t even need to go into the question of just versus unjust war and the moral differences between capital punishment and abortion to respond to the question of whether George Bush is pro-life or not. With more than one million unborn children being killed by abortion every year in the U.S. alone, no other issue represents anything near the assault on the sanctity of life that abortion does.

The killing of a human being — made in the image of God, whether guilty or innocent — is always tragic, but there is no greater tragedy than the killing of a fragile, unborn child within the womb. Not only is the child killed, but the mother’s womb is defiled, motherhood itself is desecrated, and God’s gift of life is itself is treated like a curse.

Bush and Kerry on Abortion

George Bush may not be the perfect pro-life candidate, but no such candidate exists, if we are going to include electability among the qualities of the perfect candidate — as we must. George Bush may not have been outspoken on abortion during this campaign, but he has made his pro-life position clear to those who are listening. And he has given us real victories with the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and Born Alive Infants Act; the appointments of pro-life pro-constitution judges to the federal judiciary; and the reinstatement of Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy denying U.S. funds for abortions abroad.

How about John Kerry’s record on abortion? Kerry voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He opposes parental notification. He even went so far as to take a break from campaigning vote against Connor’s Law, which President Bush signed, that makes it murder to kill a woman’s unborn child against her will. And NARAL Pro-Choice America president Kate Michelman has declared, “Even on the most difficult issues, we’ve never had to worry about John Kerry’s position.”

The Responsible Pro-Life Voter

The pro-life positions of these two presidential candidates are clear. Now it remains for you, the pro-life voter, to exercise your solemn duty to vote with a pro-life conscience. That does not mean to vote only for the “perfect” pro-life candidate. A vote is not an endorsement of everything a candidate stands for, nor is it a nomination for sainthood.

A vote merely states a preference among alternatives. The responsible pro-life voter weighs the issues, and reckons with the practical consequences of casting a vote out of resentment that a candidate has not done all that he might have done.

The responsible pro-life voter considers how he or she will feel the day after Nov. 2 if our nation has elected a man committed to expanding abortion; to federally funding embryonic stem cell research; to allowing the further erosion of the sanctity of marriage; and to appointing pro-abortion judges — and he or she did nothing to stop it.

Share Tweet Email