"Well, I'm Personally Opposed, But Unwilling To Impose," Said The Smiling Politician As He Handed The Scissors To The Doctor...

Have you ever noticed how every single politician who uses the "personally opposed, but unwilling to impose" argument as a cop out when confronted about their views on abortion just happens to have a 100% voting record in support of abortion according to NARAL and seems to have no problems with imposing support for abortion on unwilling taxpayers? Seems to me that anyone who is genuinely conflicted on abortion would just abstain from voting on the issue rather than consistently voting against their conscience. Then again, politics and common sense did go through a messy divorce well before my time.

Still, why is it that the "personally opposed, but unwilling to impose" argument gets used only when referring to abortion? Why is it alright to express this idea on abortion but not, say, on racism? I can only imagine how quickly the press would devour the politician who says, "I'm personally opposed to racism, but I don't see how I have the right to tell a restaurant owner that he can't hang a 'Whites Only' sign in the front window of his establishment." If such a politician were given a 100% rating for his voting record on race issues by the KKK (no offense meant to any elderly senators from West Virginia), I imagine he would be tarred and feathered and run out of Washington. Certainly, this politician's claims to be "personally opposed" to racism would be ridiculed, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would do their usual round of chasing down the nearest available TV camera and calling for this politician's resignation in righteously indignant tones.

And if a politician whose voting record consistently favored capital punishment were to say, "I'm personally opposed to capital punishment, but I don't see where I would get off telling a government how to punish its convicted felons," I seriously doubt anti-capital punishment activists would shrug their shoulders and say, "To each his own." Instead, they'd come out in full force and denounce the politician as a supporter of capital punishment who was trying to have it both ways.

Yet the politician who says, "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't see what right I have to tell a woman what to do with her body" is not only not challenged by the media on such a stance, but is usually praised for having such strong "principles." Well, I'm used to the double standard the media employs concerning the issue of abortion (and in general concerning Christian moral teachings they happen to reject), but that doesn't make this any less cowardly or pathetic.

I have just one question for those who think they can pass themselves off as pro-life despite refusing to oppose the horror of abortion just because they claim to be "personally opposed": do you or do you not believe that it is a human being growing inside a pregnant woman's body? If the answer is yes, then no amount of "personal opposition" will change the fact that you are condoning the slaughter of innocents by others on a scale that King Herod could never have imagined. If the answer is no, however, then you do not believe that abortion is murder; and if this is the case, then what logical reason can there be for being "personally opposed"? No matter how you view it, the "personally opposed but unwilling to impose" argument is a dishonest and cowardly way of trying to avoid having to make one's true beliefs on the issue of abortion known.

I'd like to say that in this case actions speak louder than words; but given the proliferation of obnoxiously loud politicians infesting our nation's capital, I think it's better to say that actions speak more forcefully. God bless!


In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald