If the last 35 years have proved nothing else, they have at least shown that, in the American political arena, the pro-life movement is the cheapest date in town.
The system works something like this: Along about election time, we can expect a call from the nation's political hacks mostly Republicans. They don't really like being seen in public with us, but if they want to get elected they don't have a choice. So they kiss us on the ear and whisper how much they love us. But, of course, they promise nothing and we demand nothing. We know our place, and, once our election-cycle dream date is over, we will go back and wait by the phone until they want us again.
Meanwhile, the killing continues.
Let's get something straight here. The time has come for the pro-life movement to set some new ground rules. We can start by informing America's politicians that the days when they could finesse the issue by telling us their philosophical position on abortion are over. We don't care what they "feel" or "think" or "believe" about abortion; all we want to know is two things. First, do they believe that an unborn child is a "person" from the moment of fertilization and, thus, entitled to have his or her life protected by the United States Constitution? Second, if they do believe that, what is their plan to return legal protection to these children?
Anyone whose answer to the first question is anything other than an unapologetic and unqualified "Yes" is not pro-life. As for the second question, let's make it clear to these people that we dismiss any answer that mentions "reducing the need for abortion" or "lowering the unwanted pregnancy rate" or "creating a culture of life," etc. We have bought that sort of mealy-mouthed political gibberish in the past, but no more.
If you think I am being unrealistic for saying that a politician's "position" on abortion is meaningless, consider this. If you went into a state penitentiary and talked with all the serial rapists incarcerated there, you would find that a significant number would tell you rape is wrong and that they understood so when they did it. We also know that a certain percentage of these same people would rape again if released. So obviously, what they "believe" about rape is irrelevant. All that matters to the victim is what they do.
That same dynamic applies here. What politicians "believe" about abortion doesn't help the unborn until it becomes action. Believe me, if the economy was in the tank, we would not allow a politician simply to tell us that he "believes" in a sound economy. We'd demand to know what his plan is for fixing it. Let's do at least that much for the unborn.
The next thing we need to do is inform these politicians that we are going to be single-issue voters. Simply put, when a candidate is wrong on the slaughter of helpless children, his or her position on other issues is irrelevant. For too long, the pro-life movement has bought the lie that we should not have litmus tests. That is nonsense. There are many perfectly legitimate litmus tests, and anyone who claims not to have any is either lying or is completely devoid of personal convictions.
Think about it. A politician could be attractive, intelligent, experienced and have all the right answers to the important issues of the day, but if he were found to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan you can be assured that would be a litmus test. And if it were discovered that another fully qualified politician had written a law review article saying women should not be allowed to vote, that would be a litmus test. You can also be pretty certain that if a politician said that the terrorists who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center had legitimate reasons for doing so, his or her position on other issues would become irrelevant. Actually, if you really want to know about litmus tests and single-issue voting, think about the fate of a politician who said that his reason for seeking office was to raise dramatically the tax rate on every voter? Could he be "right enough" on every other issue to make up for it?
That is the standard we must start using for the unborn, and that remains true even when the political offices involved are unrelated to abortion. If we truly believe that abortion is the intentional execution of helpless children, we must also acknowledge that any politician who is pro-choice is not morally qualified to be dogcatcher.
I don't believe the requirement for legal status is from the moment of conception. I believe it to be at implantation. Guess what, I am still pro-life. The radicals can try and kick me out of the movement all they want. The pro-abortion group will gladly help keep these divisions going, because that will let abortions continue indefinately.
If you want to make it even more stringent, why not say that anyone who supports contraception, in-vitro fertilization, or having sex for any purpose other than child creation isn't pro-life? I've been told that, too. Lets kick out everyone but the hard-core believers.
Imagine all the manslaughter and negligent homicide that has gone on because people are having sex, yet consuming drugs and foods which abort up to 50% of conceptuses before they have a chance to implant.
If this joker wants to purge the "chaff" from the "true flock" of believers like him, then the pro-life group has already lost.
Ok, I did not intend to post this to discuss who is and who isn't pro-life. If I meant it as an abortion thread, it should have been posted in an LDS discussion area. Hopefully, we're all agreed that abortion is wrong.
IMO, this guy describes a recurring process of candidates saying anything to get elected, and then doing whatever they intended to anyway if they managed to win the election. Usually this involves weasel word statements, so it sounds like they were on your side when they sought your vote. Very few are as blatant as "Read my lips. No new taxes."
