Is Pro-life a Conservative Sham?

Since I am a practicing Catholic, I know fellow-parishioners who would not think of voting for a pro-abortion candidate. There are many Catholics who share this view, following the precepts of church leaders, including Pope Benedict, who last year supported the decision by Mexico’s bishops to excommunicate politicians who had voted to legalize abortion in the first trimester.

I too am against abortion, but it is not an issue that could have prompted me to vote, in the past, for an extremely tainted George W. Bush or a cynical me-first politician like John McCain now.

Both represent the worst of neo-conservative ideology, an ideology that has brought us to the brink of economic Armageddon, deceived us into an unjust and endless war, and turned its back on the needs of the many, using the hoax of trickle-down economics.

I cannot be suckered into accepting candidates on the basis of one professed issue, especially when it is an insincere, cynical ploy for votes. If you are acquainted with most issues, you would find that recent conservative policy speaks only for the rich. It is bigoted, duplicitous, and especially under Bush, fraught with corruption and cynicism.

What we are saying is that the 1.2 million abortions in 2005 would not be greater under Democrats but probably would have been less, as Democrats usually consider the causes of abortion and the needs of the people.

If you really analyze abortion as a right-to-life issue, the proclaimed pro-life party has never demonstrated much if any impact on abortion. A president’s primary weapon is the judicial appointment.

Republican appointments of “strict-constructionist” federal judges since Ronald Reagan owe more to protecting property rights than overturning abortion rights. No progress in stopping abortion has resulted. In effect, court rulings have done more to restrict human rights and victimize the poor than stop abortion.

In a nutshell, the recent Republican party’s overall policies have been responsible for taking more unnecessary lives in war, impoverishing and imperiling life because of economic policy, and lowering the quality of life for the poor through its social policy. For want of health care coverage, for example, some 18,000 Americans die per year.

The neo-conservative Christian charity doesn’t encompass love, forgiveness and peace. Looking at the Bush years and the current McCain candidacy, their code involves exclusion, division, and fear.

It is now common knowledge that the Bush regime lied us into a deadly war. The result is up to one million innocent civilians dead, millions displaced, tens of thousands wounded and maimed and a war-torn Iraq. In the name of a war on terrorism, torture is an established Bush policy. Domestic spying is an accepted policy with Bush leadership, something also supported by McCain.

Our current Republican candidate is running a cynical and deceitful campaign, and to pander to conservative voters, claims an allegiance to pro-life policies.

He has promised the continuation of the Iraqi war and displays an almost insane jingoism (his chant is bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran) that is sure to promote new wars giving us more death and suffering.

In fact, his social and economic policies would continue conditions that promote abortions for families that feel they cannot afford to have and raise children. Health care benefits would go to those who could afford its premiums, sure to shut out an increasing pool of middle class and working poor. Human resource costs would be cut to make more war possible and to finance tax cuts for the rich.

Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" as their primary reason.

Half of all women who abort say that they do not have a reliable mate, for men who are jobless usually do not marry. During the Bush years there has been a net loss of jobs. Average real incomes have decreased and for over seven year the minimum wage has not increased to match inflation.

The perils of unaffordable health care and poverty have probably done more to promote abortion, conditions that seem to thrive under modern Republicans.

Delivery of a baby costs from $12,000 to $15,000 for those with no health insurance. Even with insurance, the cost is around $4000. The baby’s first year will cost almost $8000 while the costs of raising a baby to age 18 costs between $125,000 and $250,000.

The Bush regime has already proven that neo-conservatives only lead for the rich. Likewise, conservative politicians like John McCain will do very little to help those who need help, including the poor and the middle class.

To say that such politicians are pro-life is a cruel sham, and it is time for informed Americans to study all the issues and determine which candidate stands for Christian principles and who, based on past experience, would do the most to preserve life for adults and babies alike.

Leaving division and economic turmoil in their wake, Republicans have proven time and time again (S&L taxpayer bailout under Reagan, taxpayer bailouts under Bush, and Nixon Watergate) that they are the candidates of the privileged and only pontificate about the right to life, liberty and happiness.

 

Comments

[Michael V]

I'm voting for McCain largely because I'm pro-life, though I agree with you on many other issues. When people say that one issue should not trump all others, my reply is that it depends on the issue. There is a such thing as a deal-breaker. The Iraq war doesn't come close to abortion in terms of the number of victims or the scale of the devastation.

You raise legitimate points by asking whether Republican politicians have the desire and ability to help stop abortion. I don't presume ill will on anyone's part, and I can certainly see in principle how a person might not be especially generous with giving money to innocent people yet might come short of accepting the killing of innocent people.

Perhaps the Bush years have been ugly for the poor, yet abortion rates have not risen (they've fallen a bit in the last few years). Maybe they would have gone down further still under Kerry - but do we have any evidence of that?

The Supreme Court is only part of the puzzle, but it's an important one. It's true that some of the pro-choice justices were appointed by Republican presidents, but I think Republican presidents are increasingly being careful (or pressured) to pick solidly pro-life justices. The only way to argue that a president does not influence the amount of time we have to live under Roe is to argue that pro-life and pro-choice presidents are equally likely to appoint pro-life justices, which seems pretty unlikely to me.

The notion that ecomomic policy affects a womam's choice wheather or not to have an abortion may be true, but it is a cause and effect
connection that policy makers need not have to make.
Morality is what dictates how one must conduct one's life regardless of any gorverning policy. Abortion is a willful termination of an innocent life, and is therefore a moral issue. What's left is personal responsibility in the exercise of morality. Would you blame policy for having to embezel to make personal ends meet? I suppose you could, but you'de still have to go to jail. In that sense, Roe vs Wade legalized stealing... at least from our Christian moral point of view.
Your beef with Bush on his economic policies is understandable. I personally think he's not conservative enough. But your steam on his moral stand is misdirected.