Published on -11/2/2012, 1:32 PM
I find it quite interesting that in your Oct. 25 editorial, just days before the election, you chose to closely scrutinize pro-life constituents, suggesting that an asterisk be placed behind the "pro-life stance" of those who would allow limited abortion. Hmmm, I am puzzled. Are you pro-life and truly scandalized by those who lack conviction to protect life? If so, then I must point out your weighty error in reporting "there really aren't people advocating an increase in abortions." If you are going to be a real pro-life supporter and not have your own "asterisk" showing, you need to be made aware that your statement is erroneous -- or could it be that your true reason for devoting an entire column to chastise wishy-washy pro-lifers was really just to promote your own political agenda?
Mr. Lowry, in your lengthy commentary, you failed to mention that Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in the history of our country -- and yes, I am using the term correctly. Throughout his political career, he has proven that he not only advocates abortion, he desires that absolutely no limits be placed on it, including partial-birth abortion where the baby's brain is sucked out through a surgical incision made in the back the baby's head just before birth. Mr. Obama actually fought to keep this horrific procedure legal, even when the overwhelming majority voted against it because they found it to be barbaric. Furthermore, contrary to the majority of his fellow Democrats, Sen. Obama voted three times against the Born Alive Act, which ensures that babies born alive after a failed abortion are given the same rights as any other citizen.
Besides President Obama's authorization of taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research (additional aborted life), his Obamacare considers abortion, contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilization "preventative services" under its definition of "health care" and is forcing the Catholic church and other religious entities to comply. Need I go on? I certainly could. On, and on, and on.
I would think, that as a journalist, you must surely realize the abortion industry is a billion-dollar, money-making giant, and that its main feeder, Planned Parenthood, makes the bulk of its money by doing just that -- promoting abortion. (By the way, regardless of the caring guise it hides behind, Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms, does not offer any health service that can't be attained at any health clinic, and has been caught red-handed in illegal activities and reporting. Those are valid reasons our tax dollars should not be funding it -- especially in light of our country's $16 trillion debt. Ouch.)
So again, I wonder, what exactly were you trying to convey to your readers? Was it: "Since Romney won't protect all unborn babies, then vote for the man who won't protect any"?
Since your conviction was unclear to me, I'll make mine very clear: I would never vote for Obama. His irrational determination to keep all abortions legal is proof to me that his judgment is critically skewed. He is blinded to spiritual truth and scientific evidence that life begins at conception, which you so clearly pointed out. This assures me that Mr. Obama is and will probably continue to be erroneous in his judgment and handling of other critical issues.
I would agree, Romney's stance on abortion is not an absolute pro-life stance -- he and others like him apparently are just not ready to accept the fullness of truth -- that all human life is sacred. Even so, to berate or belittle those who are exercising a modicum of moral caution and attempting to restrict the slaughter of innocent babies is neither reasonable nor prudent. We have to start somewhere.
Unfortunately, "Cafeteria Christians" are everywhere, and clearly evident in groups such as Catholics for Choice. Just as children sometimes wander away from the solid teachings of their parents, so too, do Catholics, Christians and Muslims sometimes pick and choose or stray from God's laws, including the commandment, "thou shall not kill." However, the act of rejecting the church and God's law does not remove the validity of the command, its truth or the inevitable consequences of disobedience we witness every day. Moral relativism is a grave and destructive monster whose tentacles reach out to destroy faith, family values and souls.
Perhaps we should spend more time reflecting on the reasons our "enlightened" society is still so violent. Why, so often, innocent girls and boys are abducted and murdered? Why do we frequently hear of a mother or father killing their own children? Why the prevalence of school shootings? Could the correlation be any more obvious?
Maybe the escalation in violence against children is caused by something in the air -- something called spiritual blindness. To quote the words of a song that touches almost every single human heart, regardless of religious affiliation, "I once was blind, but now, I see."
Now there's a notion worthy of an entire column. Do you see my point, Mr. Lowry?