S
St_Aloysius
Guest
I’m a happy liberal. I’m also a devout pro-lifer.
I’ve been rooting for candidates who stand up for the prolife issue . Anyhoo, I’ve been encouraging my friends to consider this when voting in the mock election this coming Monday at school.
Well, while discussing this issue in our Religious Education class, one of our teachers said something that really made me think about it in a different light. She told us that she had a friend that underwent an abortion because her financial situation was so bad that she felt it was a mercy-act: She didn’t think she could give her child everything it needed. So our teacher told us that she has made sure since then that the candidate that she votes for gives hope to people like her friend, that can help financially those in desperate need in order to prevent more abortions springing from such a scenario. In other words, she might vote for a pro-choice candidate in order to save a child’s life.
Likewise, a very strong and opionated pro-life friend of mine is rooting for a pro-choice candidate in the race. When I asked about why she supported a pro-choice candidate, she answered: “Right now, in this country, people already have the choice. They probably will for a while. I want good policies in the meantime. I think our job should be giving hope to those that have the choice to make–because even were it illegal, without doing that, we’d’ve made little real difference.”
These thoughts really caught me off-guard. Both are working toward the preservation of human life. Their resolutions seem good and perfectly justifiable. After all, a pro-life president will always be subject to the rulings of Congress. Their campaigns for life, and their unique ways of going about it: What are your thoughts on this?
I’ve been rooting for candidates who stand up for the prolife issue . Anyhoo, I’ve been encouraging my friends to consider this when voting in the mock election this coming Monday at school.
Well, while discussing this issue in our Religious Education class, one of our teachers said something that really made me think about it in a different light. She told us that she had a friend that underwent an abortion because her financial situation was so bad that she felt it was a mercy-act: She didn’t think she could give her child everything it needed. So our teacher told us that she has made sure since then that the candidate that she votes for gives hope to people like her friend, that can help financially those in desperate need in order to prevent more abortions springing from such a scenario. In other words, she might vote for a pro-choice candidate in order to save a child’s life.
Likewise, a very strong and opionated pro-life friend of mine is rooting for a pro-choice candidate in the race. When I asked about why she supported a pro-choice candidate, she answered: “Right now, in this country, people already have the choice. They probably will for a while. I want good policies in the meantime. I think our job should be giving hope to those that have the choice to make–because even were it illegal, without doing that, we’d’ve made little real difference.”
These thoughts really caught me off-guard. Both are working toward the preservation of human life. Their resolutions seem good and perfectly justifiable. After all, a pro-life president will always be subject to the rulings of Congress. Their campaigns for life, and their unique ways of going about it: What are your thoughts on this?