i will write more on the issue later, but here's what John Piper wrote back in 1995. i totally agree, of course.
(Piper also delivered a sermon last year about how abortion is racism.)
One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society
By John Piper
January 1, 1995
Investigating
dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those
who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the
charge of being a one-issue voter?
No endorsement of any single
issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not
make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are
numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For
example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government
efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform
was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million)
would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who
said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone
he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a
misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These
examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for
them would disqualify a candidate for office.
It's the same with
marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some
qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I
was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have
disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking
coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't,
but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiancé
does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues
may matter enough to break off the relationship.
So it is with
politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you
think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that
the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a
person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as
saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would
disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those.
When
we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the
laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1
says, "No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or
kill any animal." Subdivision 7 says, "No person shall willfully
instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal." The
penalty: "A person who fails to comply with any provision of this
section is guilty of a misdemeanor."
Now this set me to
pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a
beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity,
finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is
not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says
that "no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due
process of law." Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as
persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a
dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics
with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it
legal to "maim, mutilate and kill" a pain-sensitive unborn human being
but not an animal?
These reflections have confirmed my
conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if
he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.
Recent Comments