Opinion by By Fr. Lawrence Abello, S.J.
NOTE From LifeSiteNews: Fr. Abello is a Jesuit missionary in Calcutta, India who served as Mother Teresa’s chaplain during the latter part of her life. In the years 1985-6, before returning to India, he often witnessed and prayed for hours at the back alley of Henry Morgentaler’s abortuary at 85 Harbord Street in Toronto, Canada and was instrumental is saving some mothers and their babies from abortion. The voting opinions expressed in this article sent to LifeSiteNews by Fr. Abello are expressly the opinions of Fr. Abello.
October 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – As the Tuesday, November 4th US Election Day and the October 14 Canadian election approach, you may wonder whether there is an overriding issue that should determine your vote. What is an ‘overriding issue’? An overriding issue is so fundamental that, of two candidates, the one who has the more unacceptable position on that issue should not be supported regardless of more acceptable positions on other issues. Let us determine, step by step, whether an overriding issue faces you on either of those election days. My remarks are primarily directed to Americans but the basic principles apply just as much to Canadians.
Was there an overriding issue in 1857 when the “honorable” judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the ‘Dred-Scott’ case, upheld the owner’s right to bring slaves across state lines like stray animals? Was there an overriding issue for centuries in India when an “untouchable” could be killed for walking across a Brahm in’s shadow? Was there an overriding issue when Lenin and Stalin killed millions as “insects, parasites and vermin”? Was there an overriding issue in 1933 when the Germans voted into power the Nazi Party, with its attractive economic policies, but in spite of Hitler’s position that certain categories of people (Jews and others) were ‘Unmenschen’ (non-humans) who should be exterminated in a holocaust?
As in 1933, so also in 2008 there are several issues that loom large in many people’s minds such as the economy and social welfare policies.
I submit to you that the overriding issue is the so-called “legalization” of the abortion holocaust by the Supreme Court in 1973. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are the following:
A) One must be aware that, on January 22nd, 1973, the majority of the “honorable” judges of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the ‘Roe v. Wade’ and ‘Doe v. Bolton’ cases, ruled that abortion is “legal” throughout the nine months of pregnancy through accepting, by the latter case, emotional conditions of the mother as justifying abortion at any stage of pregnancy. These judges also added, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” (Roe v. Wade, IX, B, p. 159.)
B) These rulings ushered in a holocaust and a ‘relativistic atheism’. That is, one constructs one’s own truth to suit one’s desires. For example, if one wants the child, ‘he’ or ‘she’ is a baby from conception (a test-tube ‘baby’), but if one does not want the child, “it” is a blob of protoplasm until birth.
C) Moreover, democracy itself is at stake when Supreme Court Judges, who are not responsible to the people because they are appointed for life, arrogate unto themselves the role of “legislating”, instead of merely ‘adjudicating’. The majority judges “legislated” from the bench when they concocted ‘Roe v. Wade’ by reading a “right” to abortion in the Constitution that does not even refer to abortion. What “right” might such Judges read next in the Constitution: euthanasia, same-sex “marriages”, or polygamy!
D) Furthermore, besides the atheistic relativism, “pro-choice” is based on a completely materialistic view of human life. “Pro-choicers” cannot even entertain the possibility that the purpose of a human being’s life is to prepare now for a ‘destiny beyond death’. Their arguments are entirely restricted to a ‘this world’ view of life. The very thought that abortion terminates a human being’s right to grow in sanctity during this life and, thereby, causes the victim to reach the destiny beyond death as a ‘spiritual dwarf’, elicits such a complete consternation in “pro-choicers” that they usually banish such a thought. But the myopic view that a human being’s destiny ends with death divests life of any ultimate meaning. It also eliminates ultimate personal consequences of doing ‘good’ instead of doing ‘evil’. Although many “pro-choicers” retain moral values, what ultimate difference does it make whether one lives a good life, a bad life, or commits suicide if one ends up as only dust after death!
Given the atheistic and materialistic mentalities, along with the threat to democracy that ‘Roe v. Wade’ has foisted on the nation, I submit to you that the overriding issue is to elect a President who will nominate, and senators who will support the appointment of Supreme Court Judges most likely to overturn ‘Roe v. Wade’ and ‘Doe v. Bolton’. Moreover, this overriding, right-to-life issue also mandates electing members of Congress and Governors who will support pro-life legislation.
What is the stand of the Presidential candidates? Barak Obama went to the extent of voting against the Bill prohibiting ‘partial birth abortion’. As President he would reverse the present ‘Mexico City Policy’ prohibiting U.S. tax money from being diverted to promote abortion abroad. Reversing this policy would promote ‘female feticide’ by the hundreds of thousands in many Asian countries- an ‘extremist feminists’ Frankenstein’ for those who want to uphold women’s “rights” by supporting “legalized” abortion!
Obama is the typical, “pro-choice” relativistic atheist constructing his own truth. When Pastor Warren asked the two presidential candidates at what stage protection of human life must begin, John McCain answered ‘at conception’, whereas, Obama tried to confuse the issue by claiming that the question has both theological and scientific dimensions. He concluded that the answer is above his pay grade.
Later on, he admitted that he had given a flippant answer. For Obama the truth is not determined by reality but can be twisted and turned to suit his purposes in different situations. If Obama cannot answer from what stage human life must be protected, how can he be so adamant in pursuing policies that afford no protection to the preborn child!
For example, in the Illinois legislature, Obama even voted against an anti-infanticide bill (the ‘Born-Alive Infants Protection Act’) demanding care for babies surviving abortion. Besides, on the 35th anniversary of ‘Roe v. Wade’ (Jan. 22nd 2008), Obama stated that, as President, he would sign the ‘Freedom of Choice Act’, which would overrule all restrictions on abortion. Cf. the website given below. His vice-presidential candidate, Joe Biden, is also a pro-abortion activist.
Cf. https://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php
Furthermore, to uphold ‘Roe v. Wade’ and ‘Doe v. Bolton’, Obama would nominate revisionist Supreme Court Judges with their threat to democracy.
Let us pray that, in spite of perhaps unacceptable stands on lesser issues, voters will give the candidates’ stands on abortion the highest priority. John McCain, has a straight voting record against abortion and has promised to nominate constructionist Supreme Court Judges. Moreover, his vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, gave birth to their youngest child diagnosed before birth as having ‘Down’s Syndrome’. This ‘choice’ speaks volumes for her pro-life credentials. Furthermore, in sharp contrast to Obama, who professed he would not punish his daughters with an unplanned baby, the Palin family accepted their daughter’s child, conceived outside wedlock.
Generally, Republicans are less ‘pro-abortion’ or more ‘pro-life’ than Democrats, as their respective ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-abortion’ platforms, finalized in their Conventions, show. Yes, many voters view Republicans with disaffection and, besides, there are issues other than abortion, such as the war and the current severe financial crisis. However, even the Iraq war does not entail accepting a court ruling or law maintaining that everyone is free to decide whether Iraqis are humans or non-humans. Unlike abortionists who are paid and praised for killing their victims, those who abused inmates in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad were brought to justice.
Above all, the right to life is the fundamental right in the sense that you lose all rights if someone kills you. Try to obtain information on the stand of the candidates for the Senate, for Congress and for Governorship on the overriding issue of this election. If you cannot obtain this information, given that the Democratic Party, as a whole, tends to be more pro abortion, the better bet in many cases may be to vote Republican.
In the above, I have not appealed to any religion. Christians, in particular, must think of what Christ will say to them at the Last Judgement if they support “pro-choice” candidates: “Not only was I hungry and thirsty, but I was being killed and you elected those who promoted that killing”! (Cf. Matthew’s Gospel, 25:41-46.)
Above all on election day vote and do so to protect the most fundamental right of every human being, the right to life without which no other right or freedom has any meaning. Everybody’s duty is to protect everyone’s life beginning with the weakest whose rights are the most likely to be violated.