like Fr. Lawrence's paraphrase
of Matthew 25:41-46. The crime
of abortion cries out to high
heaven. God cannot remain indifferent
to the continuing holocaust,
as many Christians and Catholics
do. Will you be among the goats
who will be cast to eternal
fire at the last judgment? Given
the stakes in this election,
not just for the USA or Canada
but for the whole world, if
you vote for rabidly pro-abortion
candidates, then you would deserve
such a fate. For your sake,
and for the sake of the millions
of unborn children still to
come, I fervently pray that
you would vote pro-life.
the American and Canadian Voters
"Christians, in particular,
must think of what Christ will
say to them at the Last Judgement
if they support "pro-choice"
by Fr. Lawrence Abello, S.J.
From LifeSiteNews: Fr. Abello
is a Jesuit missionary in Calcutta,
India who served as Mother Teresa's
chaplain during the latter part
of her life. In the years 1985-6,
before returning to India, he
often witnessed and prayed for
hours at the back alley of Henry
Morgentaler's abortuary at 85
Harbord Street in Toronto, Canada
and was instrumental is saving
some mothers and their babies
from abortion. The voting opinions
expressed in this article sent
to LifeSiteNews by Fr. Abello
are expressly the opinions of
Fr. Abello as LifeSiteNews is
a non-partisan life and family
issues news service that does
give specific candidate or party
10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)
- As the Tuesday, November 4th
US Election Day and the October
14 Canadian election approach,
you may wonder whether there
is an overriding issue that
should determine your vote.
is an 'overriding issue'? An
overriding issue is so fundamental
that, of two candidates, the
one who has the more unacceptable
position on that issue should
not be supported regardless
of more acceptable positions
on other issues.
Let us determine, step by step,
whether an overriding issue
faces you on either of those
election days. My remarks are
primarily directed to Americans
but the basic principles apply
just as much to Canadians.
there an overriding issue in
1857 when the "honorable"
judges of the U.S. Supreme Court,
in the 'Dred-Scott' case, upheld
the owner's right to bring slaves
across state lines like stray
animals? Was there an overriding
issue for centuries in India
when an "untouchable"
could be killed for walking
across a Brahmin's shadow? Was
there an overriding issue when
Lenin and Stalin killed millions
as "insects, parasites
and vermin"? Was there
an overriding issue in 1933
when the Germans voted into
power the Nazi Party, with its
attractive economic policies,
but in spite of Hitler's position
that certain categories of people
(Jews and others) were 'Unmenschen'
(non-humans) who should be exterminated
in a holocaust?
in 1933, so also in 2008 there
are several issues that loom
large in many people's minds
such as the economy and social
submit to you that the
overriding issue is the so-called
the abortion holocaust by the
Supreme Court in 1973.
The reasons for reaching this
conclusion are the following:
One must be aware that, on January
22nd, 1973, the majority of
the "honorable" judges
of the U.S. Supreme Court, in
the 'Roe v. Wade' and 'Doe v.
Bolton' cases, ruled that abortion
is "legal" throughout
the nine months of pregnancy
through accepting, by the latter
case, emotional conditions of
the mother as justifying abortion
at any stage of pregnancy. These
judges also added, "We
need not resolve the difficult
question of when life begins"
(Roe v. Wade, IX, B, p. 159.)
rulings ushered in a holocaust
and a 'relativistic atheism'.
That is, one constructs one's
own truth to suit one's desires.
For example, if one wants the
child, 'he' or 'she' is a baby
from conception (a test-tube
'baby'), but if one does not
want the child, "it"
is a blob of protoplasm until
Moreover, democracy itself is
at stake when Supreme Court
Judges, who are not responsible
to the people because they are
appointed for life, arrogate
unto themselves the role of
of merely 'adjudicating'. The
majority judges "legislated"
from the bench when they concocted
'Roe v. Wade' by reading a "right"
to abortion in the Constitution
that does not even refer to
abortion. What "right"
might such Judges read next
in the Constitution: euthanasia,
Furthermore, besides the atheistic
is based on a completely materialistic
view of human life. "Pro-choicers"
cannot even entertain the possibility
that the purpose of a human
being's life is to prepare now
for a 'destiny beyond death'.
Their arguments are entirely
restricted to a 'this world'
view of life. The very thought
that abortion terminates a human
being's right to grow in sanctity
during this life and, thereby,
causes the victim to reach the
destiny beyond death as a 'spiritual
dwarf', elicits such a complete
consternation in "pro-choicers"
that they usually banish such
a thought. But the myopic view
that a human being's destiny
ends with death divests life
of any ultimate meaning. It
also eliminates ultimate personal
consequences of doing 'good'
instead of doing 'evil'. Although
retain moral values, what ultimate
difference does it make whether
one lives a good life, a bad
life, or commits suicide if
one ends up as only dust after
the atheistic and materialistic
mentalities, along with the
threat to democracy that 'Roe
v. Wade' has foisted on the
nation, I submit to you that
the overriding issue is to elect
a President who will nominate,
and senators who will support
the appointment of Supreme Court
Judges most likely to overturn
'Roe v. Wade' and 'Doe v. Bolton'.
Moreover, this overriding, right-to-life
issue also mandates electing
members of Congress and Governors
who will support pro-life legislation.
is the stand of the Presidential
candidates? Barak Obama went
to the extent of voting against
the Bill prohibiting 'partial
birth abortion'. As President
he would reverse the present
'Mexico City Policy' prohibiting
U.S. tax money from being diverted
to promote abortion abroad.
Reversing this policy would
promote 'female feticide' by
the hundreds of thousands in
many Asian countries- an 'extremist
feminists' Frankenstein' for
those who want to uphold women's
"rights" by supporting
is the typical, "pro-choice"
relativistic atheist constructing
his own truth.
When Pastor Warren asked the
two presidential candidates
at what stage protection of
human life must begin, John
McCain answered 'at conception',
whereas, Obama tried to confuse
the issue by claiming that the
question has both theological
and scientific dimensions. He
concluded that the answer is
above his pay grade.
on, he admitted that he had
given a flippant answer. For
Obama the truth is not determined
by reality but can be twisted
and turned to suit his purposes
in different situations. If
Obama cannot answer from what
stage human life must be protected,
how can he be so adamant in
pursuing policies that afford
no protection to the preborn
example, in the Illinois legislature,
Obama even voted against an
anti-infanticide bill (the 'Born-Alive
Infants Protection Act') demanding
care for babies surviving abortion.
Besides, on the 35th anniversary
of 'Roe v. Wade' (Jan. 22nd
stated that, as President, he
would sign the 'Freedom of Choice
Act', which would overrule all
restrictions on abortion by
codifying 'Roe v. Wade'.
Cf. the website given below.
His vice-presidential candidate,
Joe Biden, is also a pro-abortion
to uphold 'Roe v. Wade' and
'Doe v. Bolton', Obama would
nominate revisionist Supreme
Court Judges with their threat
us pray that, in spite of perhaps
unacceptable stands on lesser
issues, voters will give the
candidates' stands on abortion
the highest priority. John McCain,
has a straight voting record
against abortion and has promised
to nominate constructionist
Supreme Court Judges. Moreover,
his vice-presidential candidate,
Sarah Palin, gave birth to their
youngest child diagnosed before
birth as having 'Down's Syndrome'.
This 'choice' speaks volumes
for her pro-life credentials.
Furthermore, in sharp contrast
to Obama, who professed he would
not punish his daughters with
an unplanned baby, the Palin
family accepted their daughter's
child, conceived outside wedlock.
Republicans are less 'pro-abortion'
or more 'pro-life' than Democrats,
as their respective 'pro-life'
and 'pro-abortion' platforms,
finalized in their Conventions,
show. Yes, many voters view
Republicans with disaffection
and, besides, there are issues
other than abortion, such as
the war and the current severe
financial crisis. However, even
the Iraq war does not entail
accepting a court ruling or
law maintaining that everyone
is free to decide whether Iraqis
are humans or non-humans. Unlike
abortionists who are paid and
praised for killing their victims,
those who abused inmates in
the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad
were brought to justice.
right to life is the fundamental
right in the
sense that you lose all rights
if someone kills you. Try to
obtain information on the stand
of the candidates for the Senate,
for Congress and for Governorship
on the overriding issue of this
election. If you cannot obtain
this information, given that
the Democratic Party, as a whole,
tends to be more pro abortion,
the better bet in many cases
may be to vote Republican.
the above, I have not appealed
to any religion. Christians,
in particular, must think of
what Christ will say to them
at the Last Judgement if they
candidates: "Not only was
I hungry and thirsty, but I
was being killed and you elected
those who promoted that killing"!
(Cf. Matthew's Gospel, 25:41-46.)
all on election day vote and
do so to protect the most fundamental
right of every human being,
the right to life without which
no other right or freedom has
any meaning. Everybody's duty
is to protect everyone's life
beginning with the weakest whose
rights are the most likely to
to me life is Christ, and death
is gain." (Phil 1:21)