No matter who wins in November, one group will remain a loser

It certainly looks to be an interesting upcoming election night around the country and here in Ohio.

Despite the sea change – or at least pond change – on the electoral horizon, and one that would be preferred here, I am nevertheless left wanting. Sad is probably the better term. The reason is that, whatever positives might come out of November, there is one issue that will remain mostly untouched: abortion.

For most of my recollection, there have been two issues that have dominated national politics, the economy and defense. It’s funny that even when the economy wasn’t doing too badly, political opponents tried to make it so. Remember when Clinton liked to call the economy “the worst in 50 years.” No doubt many would prefer that economy about now.

(Note to politicians: Please, please stop saying this (any) election is about three issues: 1. Jobs. 2. Jobs. 3. Jobs. It’s been used so much there is no anticipation. Nobody is wondering what you are going to say issues 2 and 3 are. We get it.)

Now abortion has risen at times in some elections. But it is never sustained. And, just as it becomes a somewhat prominent issue, almost on cue the media produce polls saying that abortion is, like, seventh, 11^th or 17^th on the list of issues important to voters.

We are more worried about China than the life of the unborn in the womb. Yet, one of the reasons for China’s growing economic power is the enormous size of its market and workforce driven, of course, by the size of its population. There is greater poverty in China than America but this is more a function of its political system than the size of its population. In any event, conditions are improving.

National defense takes precedence over the unborn even though we are defending what? The lives of our citizens. Is the contradiction that somehow those in the womb do not deserve the same protection not apparent?

Then there is the issue of education, dealt with mostly at the state level. It really is the key to our economy and our national defense. One of the most pressing aspects of this issue is cost. But leaving all the arguments about spending aside, would we be better off with more students or fewer? In Ohio, are school districts worse off because more students are attending or because their students are fleeing to charter schools? Would teachers’ unions be happier if fewer students needed to be educated, meaning fewer teachers employed?

True, some school districts do suffer from more students than their infrastructure can handle temporarily. But is it better to draw from a smaller or larger tax base to fund education? And think of all those construction jobs, jobs, jobs.

Other than in esoteric think tanks, radical environmental groups, or organizations that make money off of supporting or performing abortion, who believes having fewer citizens makes our economy, our defense, our educational system, stronger?

Of course, preserving the life of the unborn is ultimately about the sacredness of life, the dignity of the human being. But since the emphasis is almost always elsewhere, it seems necessary to express the destructiveness of abortion in these terms.

Unfortunately, even when presented in such self-interested fashion, I’m afraid the life of the unborn will not reach the level of financial regulation, stimulus bills, a new tanker for the Air Force or a surge in Afghanistan. All of these are critically important issues. But they all stem from, and are reliant upon, a respect for life that is seriously in question when in its youngest and most vulnerable state we consider it unworthy of our love and protection.

Tagged as: abortion, elections, life, politicians