‘Pro-life’ candidates may not represent what they espouse
As the election nears, people will hear many voices urging them to vote for pro-life candidates. But what does it really mean to be pro-life? Is opposition to abortion all there is to it? I don’t think so.
A candidate who would deny effective pre-natal care to impoverished mothers is not pro-life. A candidate who would deny these basic life necessities: food, medical care, and housing to the impoverished is not pro-life.
A candidate who would prefer that our tax money be spent on missiles and bombs rather than schools and hospitals is not pro-life.
A candidate who is anxious to send our young men and woman to war, but finds it too expensive to care for those wounded in body and soul, is not pro-life.
A candidate who thinks Second Amendment rights are more important than keeping psychotics, criminals and terrorists from obtaining the weapons they use to murder our children is not pro-life.
A candidate who is not willing to sacrifice to protect our environment, which, after all, sustains all life on earth, is not pro-life.
When election day comes, voters need to remember that life does not end at birth.