What I Did of Importance Yesterday

And I voted for life. I took a stand, no matter how small, for the unborn.

Over at his Crunchy Con blog, at beliefnet.com, Rod Dreher says he is not voting for president because Obama is against life and although McCain is for the life of the unborn, Dreher feels as though his anti-life campaigns of war and bombing and his poor choices of late (of which, Dreher includes the choice of Sarah Palin as vice president) disqualify him.

I hate to be a single issue voter, but for president, this year, I had to be. But wait, there's more...

I am sick of politics. Sick and sickened. I am so ashamed to be living in a country where running for president is an undertaking over 2 years in the making wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have been badgered for money countless times. I can give you my time and support, but let's be realistic, someone on my salary, with two small children, can't contribute to a political campaign. Most ironic for me in this election regarding money is that the Democratice candidate declined public financing. And without it, the GOP hopes would have been sunk.

Which, strangely enough brings me back to abortion. I am sick of the politicalization of abortion. We are so caught up in a woman's "right to choose" that that is where the political money is flowing. Forgotten in this argument all to often is the voiceless, the helpless children. The aborted babies unable to assert their "right to choose" their own lives are caught in the crossfire, yet widely ignored. Instead, the anti-life crowd focuses on the mother and the prolife crowd, all to often, shamelessly focuses on their superior morality. I have heard one too many smug prolifers on the television and radio not even mention the baby and speak about how this is "just wrong" and these people are "sinners" (let he among you who has not sinned...). It's all about the sound bite, the money flowing to the right candidate.

Here is what both sides are missing that as a Catholic, I find reprehensible. Abortion is the murder of an unborn child. That child is not the only victim. His or her mother is as well. As a Catholic, I am proud that Project Rachel exists to counsel the "living victims" of abortion. In addition, women are often the victims of abortion not because of a "selfish desire for their own lives" but due to lack of education on other options and sheer desperation at not being able to provide for a child.

So, now, we come to where I have had disagreements with fellow conservative Catholic mothers. When the majority of women I speak with who are Catholic mothers speak about other options than abortion for women, this is typically restricted to having the baby and keeping it with help from family. I almost never hear the words "adoption" come out of a Catholic mouth unless we are talking about a couple that cannot conceive. We talk the talk about being "open to life" but restrict that to only our own reproductive lives. This is one place where the Protestants, especially the Baptists and Methodists, have us beat. I have met many Protestant families made of biological and adopted children. A coworker of mine has five biological children and six adopted children. And while she is white, her adopted children are all African American. They are a wonderful cohesive family. We can show much more support for a mother deeply troubled in her pregnancy and considering the murder of a child if we show her that we are a family, loving and deeply committed to providing a good life for any child. I once posted to a thread on a blog regarding a woman who had had multiple c-sections (as I have) who was deeply troubled that she may not be able to have the large family she believed God wanted her to have because of the restrictions of having a c-section. Over 25 posts went up immediately about so and so who had 10 c-sections but also cautioning that after 2, someone else was forced to have a hysterectomy. I read in disgust that NO ONE even considered the large family could be just as fulfilling if the children were not biological. So, I posted stating that as a pro-life Catholic, I was astounded that adoption had not been mentioned and that there is no greater way to support a mother's "choice" of life as providing a solid home for that child. The mother who had originally posted the query posted about three hours after my post saying she had lost the pregnancy she had been carrying and thanking everyone for their comments and then singled me out as someone who had opened her eyes to a new way of thinking and she was so grateful for that and it put her mind at ease that a large family may still be attainable regardless of her status with c-sections. That opened my eyes to the fact that as Catholics, by and large, we don't consider adoption.

And if I see any rays of light in an Obama presidency, it is that he has committed to helping increase adoptions as a viable option for pregnant women. He has realized there are many families out there with love to give who are disqualified for adoption because of antiquated standards and many babies who could be saved if adoptions were more easy to attain. That was one of my great disappointments in President and First Lady Bush who were infertility patients (ever wonder how they got twins when twins didn't run in either family?) and were preparing to adopt a child when they finally did become pregnant. There story was powerful, and they had the power to change many hearts and minds. And didn't. It is my hope that if my vote for Senator McCain counts toward his victory as president, he will also commit to helping increase adoptions, after all, he is the father of an adopted daughter himself!

So, while Rod Dreher doesn't seem to think a vote for the unborn is a vote worth giving this election cycle. I had to disagree. My vote may be one small stand for the unborn, but hopefully it will elect a man who can change humankind.