Single Issue Voters? Hardly.

Single Issue Voters? Hardly.
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano

On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court found a "right" that did not specifically exist in the Constitution, Pro-lifers are still fighting the same hard battle for the lives of the unborn. Pro-choice advocates continue to insist that a woman's right to an abortion is a personal decision, affecting only her body, and has no impact on the public arena.

They could not be any more wrong.

The mainstream media is now bantering around a term that adequately addresses the unspoken repercussions of the pro-choice dogma; we now live in a "culture of death."

Allow me to explain.

When Roe v. Wade was decided, the Justices initially indicated that they could never foresee the day when "abortion on demand" was the norm. Abortion was considered an unpleasant and last alternative, something done in gross desperation in response to grossly desperate circumstances. The aura of unacceptability made abortion a dirty word -- not a cherished "right." As a society, we still saw the inherent goodness and value of an unborn life. The sanctity of Motherhood was still intact.

In order to make abortion more palatable, rhetoric was introduced which dehumanized the inalterably human life of the unborn child. It was now a "fetus" or a viable tissue mass; it was not referred to as a baby. It was a personal choice, not a public scandal. Any attempt to argue against abortion was seen as a direct affront against Womankind -- which only could be an oppressive, resentful attack by the dominant Male Establishment. The rhetoric was alarmingly successful; an average of 1.4 million abortions now occur every year. Unborn children are no longer regarded as children, with rights equal to those we enjoy under the Constitution.

What never gets addressed is the affect this rhetoric had on all children, wanted or unwanted. Under abortion law, if a criminal enters my house with the sole purpose of injuring my unborn child, I can seek legal recourse against him only for the damage I sustained during the attack. If my child dies as a result, it doesn't matter to the courts.

In the eyes of the law, my baby is a "viable tissue mass." It wouldn't matter if I waited six years for this child, prayed heavily for two years, underwent surgery to combat encroaching sterility, or muffled sobs behind my bathroom door, hiding my heartbreak from my husband when test after test came up negative. It wouldn't matter that I loved this child, felt it kick, chosen its name, seen and heard its little heart beating. As I told the Austin News 8 reporter, Todd Baer, during the March for Life Rally in Austin this past Saturday, my right to honor my child in the womb has been pre-empted by their right to butcher their child in the womb.

But it doesn't end there. With rapid discoveries in pre-natal testing and science, justifications were offered to eliminate children who had disabilities. Families could now determine whether they wanted to incur the financial, physical, and emotional burden of caring for a special needs child. If they didn't, that child could easily be erased from the equation. I am sure the decision was not easy, but the process encouraged their disposal -- like rank human garbage. No one ever prepared these parents for the real possibility that their perfect child could suffer an unfortunate accident and be rendered a "special needs" individual after birth. What to do then? Can we now justify an after-birth abortion, based on "quality of life"?

Why not? It's easy enough to destroy the unborn; they aren't perfect enough, they aren't the right sex, they drain needed resources, they interrupt lifestyles. It's not much of a stretch to presume that individuals should be eliminated when they cease to contribute, when they no longer enjoy a certain "quality of life."

Enter the "right" to die. The old, the sick, the suffering -- instead of seeing these individuals as inherently valuable human beings, with wills, minds, souls, and strengths, we look upon their frailties and judge them lacking. They are in pain; we need to be "compassionate" and end that pain. Life is in the here and now, right? We are all just viable tissue masses; when those masses begin to fail, what use do we have?

Ironic, isn't it, that we look upon ancient peoples who cast their deformed children upon the rocks to die and consider them barbaric, but fancy ourselves civilized when we puncture the skull of an unborn child and suck out its brain with a tidy little vacuum? Ironic, isn't it, that we condemn the Nazis as brutal monsters, but willfully eliminate, through public funding, those individuals who don't conform? Ironic, isn't it, that we claim to be so diversified and advanced, and yet fail to see true value of people beyond the physical shell?

Is it any wonder we are so insensitive, are rearing a generation of young people indifferent to violence and bloodshed? Why shouldn't they be indifferent to brutality, when we are constantly justifying it in its various forms against the voiceless, the defenseless, the frail, and claiming it as some "right"? Finally, why are we surprised, after these many years, to find ourselves surrounded by a culture of death?

If the Iowa caucus proved anything, it proved that individuals are sick of the culture of death. Three of the Republican candidates for President all pledged to make the pro-life movement a central issue in their campaign; their combined totals equaled those of the moderate candidates who, while against abortion, will not take the hard-line stand.

It was a warning shot across the bow of the Republican Party. If you do not firmly support the culture of Life, you tacitly support the culture of Death. We already know where the Democratic candidates stand.

This is not a single-issue vote; for many, it is the central issue vote. Either human life is sacred and protected by the Constitution, or it's not. If it is, we must dramatically change the social and legal landscapes. If it's not, then every other right we might ever hope to claim is moot.

If we do not have the right to live, we will not be here to exercise any of the others, will we?