October 25, 2006

News analysis: Is the “pro-life” agenda decidedly “anti-life” if it is the life of someone who may vote for a Democrat?

Posted in parody, political satire at 6:03 pm by thewashingtonbeltsider

terri1psdthumbnail.jpgby Terri Firma

Actor Michael J. Fox appears in a commerical endorsing Senate candidate Claire McCaskill against incumbent Senator Jim Talent, and argues that his support goes to the candidate willing to support stem cell research because it could save the life of victims of disease such as Parkinson’s Disease, but he knows that the Republican base, the voters who support Talent, respond to appeals for the life of unborn children, and also, in the high profile Terri Schiavo debate, those of unprotected innocents dying of brain diseases for which they can not argue for their own lives. It raises the question of if the current calculus is whether a life is worth saving only if it is clear it will help the party’s electoral chances in upcoming elections. After all, there is little chance of an upcoming election being influenced unduly by the legions of “snow flake babies,” or untold numbers of comatose patients, but children who are already born into poverty or the homes of unwed mothers may vote for Democrats unless Republicans can get to them in their churches, which may be a high cost enterprise in the long-run. They are questions worth exploring with supporters of the family-values, pro-life community. Does the pro-life agenda mean only saving the unborn or nearly dead?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: