Bush vs. Kerry- the Dilemma

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Libertyand the Pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence, emphasis mine)

Fact: Dead people can have no liberty.
Fact: Dead people cannot pursue happiness.
Therefore: Life is THE absolute foundational Right

         Right now we who believe this are faced with a profound moral dilemma. Our two major parties have each offered presidential candidates who support suspending the unalienable Right to Life- one by supporting the killing of a class of people solely because of their age (abortion), the other by supporting the killing of people based on their political ideology and nationality (the war in Iraq).

         What am I to do? For me to vote for a third party candidate, or to simply not vote at all, will still result in the election of one of these two men. What am I to do?

         I’ve researched the statistics to the best of my ability. Iraqbodycount.net documents a range of 12,976 (minimum)-15,033 (maximum) civilian deaths due to American military action in Iraq since 2001. That averages to 4,325-5,011 deaths of innocent people per year due to President Bush’s war policy.

         The Alan Gutmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) reports 1.31 million deaths per year of innocent fetal Americans each of the last four years reported. Center for Disease Control & Prevention last documented 857,475 reported abortions per year. That averages to a range of 857,475-1,310,000 deaths of innocent people per year due to abortion policies supported by Senator Kerry.

         Whatever I do, one of these two men will be our president for the next four years. Don’t I have an obligation to see that the lesser of the two evils is elected?

         Hmmm? 4,325 deaths vs. 857,475 deaths per year (minimal estimates) of innocent individuals who don’t even get to vote in this election. Given the choices, I guess I have to vote for Bush.

*******************************************
Follow-up letter to individuals who contacted me about the above letter:

         I have to apologize to those who are waiting (and waiting and waiting...) for a response to their well-thought-out responses to my letter to the editor. Life is conspiring against me getting any time for concentrated pondering. I've been waiting a week for time to respond to the letters piling up on this issue (I posted the letter on-line a week before it appeared in the Monroe Evening News).

         HOWEVER, since today I got another reference from another dear friend to me being a pacifist, I thought I could at least clarify that little piece of my philosophy. I obviously have not made myself clear. Forgive me for clumping my response into one letter, instead of responding to each of you individually.

         Yes, I call myself pacifist. I do so because I PERSONALLY (sorry for pulling the "personally I'm opposed but" argument here) am opposed to the use of lethal force to solve any problem. I couldn't participate in such military action. If I were drafted back in the 70's, I would have fled to Canada. I couldn't do it. But I believe others have the right to choose (oh, I cringe to use that rhetoric!) to participate in military action. That's why you won't catch me name-calling (or I hope not) when I encounter someone who disagrees with my stand.

         My form of personal opposition to war does not mean that I think all war is immoral. Scripture is clear, and Catholic Church teaching, too, that governing authorities have a right to use force under certain conditions. We Catholics call it "Just War theory". The same goes with the right of authorities to use capital punishment. It is not forbidden to us Christians, just restricted.

         So my opposition to the wars I have observed (granted, from afar) in my lifetime, & capital punishment as it is being practiced in our country, isn't because I'm "opposed to all war". It is opposition to those which don't appear to meet the conditions of just war (as is clearly outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church- see paragraph 2309).

         Here are the conditions for a war to be moral, according to the Catechism:
-damage by the aggressor must be "lasting, grave and certain"

-all other means[besides war] must be "impractical or ineffective"- in other words, it's a last resort.

-there must be "serious prospects of success"

-"The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition".

          I base my assessment of any particular military action on my own prayerful consideration of this teaching. I also rely on the judgement of our Pope, who moves in the circles of people that "know" the political realities of which I am ignorant. I'm just a little person trying to find her way in this sea of flailing humanity, but it's not just me who recognizes true evil under the guize of good motives.

         One of you said "The teachings of the church you cite are noble, I respect them, they counsel restraint, but in the end do not fully equip secular states to deal with the choices they have before them."

         That is where you are wrong. God's way often looks like foolishness. No secular state is equipped to end tyranny, poverty, illness or any of the other evils we are subject to. No amount of weapons or personnel will eradicate terrorism. Without the power of God Himself (who hasn't ordained a particular form of government, by the way), no governmental system can prevail. God isn't annointing governments and America isn't His new Messiah or prophet.

          Empires rise & fall; God still works. It is under persecution that the greatest saints have been born. There are worse evils than the death of our bodies. We must not do evil, even to help others. It will kill our soul.