Posted on 12/29/2001 10:21:38 PM PST by Dr. Brian Kopp
What the phrase means isn't exactly clear. Certainly, pro-lifers know that other "issues" besides abortion exist, and pro-lifers everywhere are in fact actively involved in addressing a host of other issues.
But precisely why do "other issues" exist and what is their importance? Other issues exist because people exist. If there were no people, there would be no issues and nobody to discuss them. The bottom line, in other words, is life. Any issue is important because life is important.
Why should we be concerned about unemployment? It is a concern because people have a right to make a living. Why do they have a right to make a living? Because they have a right to live!
Why is poverty also an important issue? It is important because people have a right to food, clothing and shelter. Why do they have a right to these things? Because they have a right to live!
It all comes down to life. That's why abortion is the key issue. Deny that a person has the right to live, and you undercut the importance of every other issue. It is impossible to speak up coherently about any issue impacting human life if you are allowing the life itself to become a disposable item. Abortion is more than abortion.
The fact that abortion is a non-issue for many people is what makes the "single-issue" accusation so misplaced. It adds insult to the injury already inflected upon the children (a fatal injury) and their mothers. "Why don't you take care of people already born?" we are asked. Our response is, "Why are you making the distinction in the first place? We speak more often of the preborn precisely because we are trying to undo the unfair distinction made between them and the born. The preborn have equal rights with the born, and we demand that those rights be respected in the same way."
To accuse pro-lifers of not having concern for the born is as unfair as accusing prison chaplains of not having concern for those who are free, or helpers of the blind of not having concern for those who see! Having a universal concern for human rights never excludes a person from having a specific focus on one group of people in need.
The preborn, furthermore, are most in need. Is any other group of people killed at the alarming rate 4,400 a day, at set times and places, accompanied by the indifference of so many and by the efforts of others to make it seem so legitimate? These deaths are not accidents; these deaths are "authorized" by the government. Is there really another issue that shows such contempt of life, or another group of human lives so unable to defend themselves?
What would happen if tomorrow a policy were announced whereby 14 year olds could be put to death at the discretion of their mothers? Would the policy last until sunset? Wouldn't people rise up in revolt? Then suppose those who had set the policy said, "Okay, we're sorry. That was a bad policy. We will push it back seven years. Only seven year olds may be put to death, at the discretion of their mother."
Would that policy be any different? Would it be any better? Then suppose the policy-makers said, "Oaky, we were wrong again. This time we'll push the age back another seven years. Boys and girls in the womb may be killed at the discretion of their mothers."
The first two cases were fantasy, but now - welcome to reality. Here's the key question: Is this policy any different, any better? No! Yet where is the outcry? Why do those who do cry out get accused of being "single-issue" poeple? Have we somehow believed the lie that abortion is morally better than killing a seven year old? If seven year olds were legally killed, would those who spoke up be called "single-issue" people?
Because of the prayerful action of pro-lifers, many children have been saved from abortion. Ask those children if they think that being saved from abortion is a "single issue." No, for each of them it is every issue; it is life itself. For us, it is every issue regarding that child and everthing that will ever touch his or her life. The child lives. The issue is his or her every need, blessing, mission, interaction, and contribution to this world! The issue is no less than the living image of God Himself.
Yes, in the end there in only one issue. The issue is life. And ultimately, life defended and affirmed is identical with that single issue called love.
BY: Fr. Frank A. Pavone, Director of Priests for Life
American Life League, Inc.
Pro-Life Bulletin Board, March 1996
As for human life ... it's the only truly precious thing on the planet and the single ESSENTIAL issue of each and every human conscience.
Just as in our Declaration's ticking off the essential human rights ... the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ... all the rest follow if you get the primary consideration correct.
I won't vote for someone simply because they are solid on one particular issue, but I will not vote for someone if they are wrong on a couple of very important ones (abortion and firearms at the top of the list).
In answer to the title question, I'm not really "single-issue" on anything, but the chances of my supporting a candidate who doesn't stand for self-defense and the right to own guns is almost none. I am sometimes a little more forgiving of people who support abortion because I think there can be principled support for keeping abortion legal. This idea brings me to my main point.
The author takes for granted that there is no difference between killing a seven-year-old and killing an unborn child. He's right in that both are people who deserve legal protection, but he's wrong in taking for granted that people understand this fact. The abortion argument hangs on two questions. The first is whether the unborn child is a person and the second is what situations, if any, justify killing this child.
While most people think that abortion is "bad" or "wrong" in some vague sense, abortion is legal today because most do not see the unborn child as a person. Anything that distracts them from considering this question harms the pro-life movement. As long as those who believe that abortion should be legal can paint pro-lifers as being upset about people having sex and not getting pregnant, they can distract people from thinking about the personhood of the child.
There are principled people who have looked at the evidence and decided that they do not believe that the unborn child is a person. Given that conclusion, I can understand their wanting to keep abortion "safe, legal, and rare," and I might be able to support them in some circumstances.
WFTR
Bill
When a person initiates force the victim and his or her agent (police or Samaritan) may exercise their highest moral right -- the right of self-defense and physical survival. And that ought to be all that a person confronts another person unless invited to associate with another person. Too many busybodies (basically harmless unless the busybody is one of the parasitical elite) telling other people how to live their lives.
Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions shall be allowed for Principle One and Two.
Principle one is first a law. The law is that every instance that a person has force initiated against them there is a loss to that person. Only the person/victim knows the true value of their loss.
All a person need be concerned with is whether he or she has been the victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury. Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claimed to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All juries would be informed that they have the option of nullification. That is based on the premise of Objective Law or The Point Law.
I propose to scrap the old code of do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Instead, leave people alone to create their lives however they see fit.
I do not believe that a pro-lifer would ever shrug their shoulders at such a question. I've been around the movement for going on 21 years and I've never, ever, met such a person. So I have to conclude one of two things: either (1) you're a liar; or (2) these people you refer to aren't pro-lifers and you've never met a real pro-lifer.
I have a wife and baby daughter -- neither of whom would ever "need" an abortion. (Needing an abortion is like needing a heart-attack.)
PS: the person you describe as being "like Dan Quayle" sounds more like George W. Bush.
Any so-called "principled" person who has thought about this issue for more than a few minutes, and still wants to keep abortion legal, is either not principled, or has a seriously defective sense or morality and ethics. In no case should such a person be allowed to vote, much less hold office.
For example, the issue of whether one person should be allowed to own, buy or sell another person is similarly such a threshold issue. The protection of the Second Amendment is also a threshold issue for many people (myself included). Another threshold issue for me is the return to a Constitutionally limited government.
So abortion is not a single-issue, but only one of many threshold issues. If a candidate cannot see that the holocaust of abortion is the most important issue facing this country today, then I cannot vote for him.
I do, if the other candidate is pro-life, and if their position on abortion had a large probability of having a major effect on the issue (President, for example). I could have voted for Giuliani for mayor of NYC, since that office has little impact on the issue.
You do realize is that the point of the article is no matter how many issues one is concerned with, if one of them is abortion, you are called a "single issue" person. An example is a person who has held the office of Ambassador to the United Nations, and has headed Citizens Against Government Waste, and has run for President on two occasions, but is nearly always called a "single issue" person. The man I am referring to of course is Alan Keyes. Rather amusingly, there are those who attack him as a "single issue" person even while attacking his position on a subject having nothing to do with abortion (education policies is a recent example).
For example, the issue of whether one person should be allowed to own, buy or sell another person is similarly such a threshold issue. The protection of the Second Amendment is also a threshold issue for many people (myself included). Another threshold issue for me is the return to a Constitutionally limited government.
So abortion is not a single-issue, but only one of many threshold issues. If a candidate cannot see that the holocaust of abortion is the most important issue facing this country today, then I cannot vote for him.
Not only do I agree with all that, I'd say this:
"Single-issue" is a misnomer that suggests abortion can be compartmentalized, with it's presence or absence affecting nothing else.
In reality, it affects everything else, greatly.
Right you are, my objections to Whitman are that she is weak on GOP environmental issues, and publicly opposes Republicans who do not agree with her policies on major issues.
Christie Whitman and Rudy Giulani are both well-known pro-aborts. Apparently you both think it would be permissible to vote for them and/or support them as they do not directly impact the abortion question (something I dispute, but let that go for now).
If that is correct, then would you also be in favor of them if they had expressed support for sending Jews to concentration camps, or for bringing back slavery even if they had no impact or ability to promote these crimes?
It begs the question, since human life is precious and everything because without your life you have nothing -- no babies, nothing -- should we not protect ever human being from abuse?
Fair enough; you are right.
Yes.
Should human life be protected from harm from conception forward?
Are you referring to specific examples? If so, please explicate!
Thank you. In another thread, some Catholics tried rip me a new a$$hole when I said this was true.
It's really not a religious issue.
But you and I know that it isn't acceptable. Ever. And when we pretend ("we" meaning this nation as a whole, not necessarily you or I) that abortion is something principled people can disagree about, we are communicating a sub-text which says "abortion really isn't murder" or "we don't really believe the unborn are people with rights".
That is exactly the sub-text that the Republican party and by and large the pro-life movement have been communicating to the public at large for the past 30 years. This is also the great mistake of the pro-life movement. When the Republican party allows pro-aborts like Giulani and Whitman and Ridge to run as its standard bearers, it is saying that abortion is not really murder.
You and I would not stand for a candidate who espoused the Jewish Holocaust. How can we therefore stand for a candidate who espouses an even worse holocaust that is going on this very day?
I agree with that; however, for the Catholic Church abortion is an issue.
I agree.
Culture/Society
Source: World Net Daily
Published: December 25, 2001 Author: Rebecca Hagelin
Posted on 12/24/01 6:14 PM Pacific by Dr. Good Will Hunting
The pre-born child's mother was very young – and single. She was a pregnant teenager. Of course, we know now that the conception was Divine. But very early in her pregnancy, only Mary knew the baby was of God.
Joseph, her fiancé, at first thought she had become pregnant by another man. Joseph must have been devastated. I'm sure he was both furious and heart-broken at the evident betrayal by the woman he loved.
He probably also felt like killing her, which would have been an acceptable choice during the time in which they lived. What man would not have been overcome by a combination of anger, anguish and sorrow in such circumstances?
Yet, Joseph decided to deal with the matter privately and quietly. He would, in the midst of his grief, end the relationship in a manner that would protect both Mary and the child she was carrying. The law and culture of the time allowed for a pregnant woman and her illegitimate, pre-born baby to be stoned to death. But this was not an option for Joseph. The merciful, compassionate and unpopular decision to save the lives of both the woman and her unborn baby was made by a man who, in his understanding at the moment, had been betrayed, cheated, shamed and heart-broken. This selfless, life-giving decision was made in a culture that provided men the "choice" to kill both mother and child.
It was a man – a man who defied popular thought, a man who found strength to move beyond his own anger and heartbreak, that saved the life of the unborn baby who is the Messiah.
Today's culture would tell us that a man has no voice in issues of life or death of a pre-born baby. Not even when the child is his own. The feminist mantra and the lie of the voice of death have been powerful enough to distort the thinking of an entire society.
Our men have lost the ability to save the lives of America's children.
If one of the foundational truths of modern law is that a man can do nothing to protect his own pre-born child, is it any wonder why we have so many other problems? Is there really any mystery why our culture is fraught with crime, broken families, drug abuse and sexually transmitted diseases? If we've perverted the truth so much that there are actually laws which give mothers the right to kill their children, while denying the right of fathers to save them, is it any wonder that our "solutions" to social problems are chaotic and doomed to fail?
The Bible gives us a historical hero on issues of pre-born life – a bold, selfless example to follow. And remember, the baby wasn't even his baby. Joseph set aside his honor, emotions and heart-break to save the life of a pre-born child that he believed to belong to another man. And the result was the birth of the Savior of mankind.
If America's men are to save our country, they must first be able to save our children. Our righteous men must be courageous, and bold, and selfless, and merciful, and compassionate on the issues of life. If men will follow the example of Joseph, we can end the scourge of legal abortion that is destroying both the lives of children and the soul of our nation.
I would not consider support for such folks as politically expediant, and would oppose it for that reason. There are plenty of moral criminals in politics, so long as they are not doing harm in their roles, it is necessary to accept their participation, in order to be politically effective.
I am not up on this issue, though interested. As a Floridian I could hardly be in a worse location to know what is going on there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.