Gary Nelson: If candidates don’t hold life sacred, what else can you trust them with?
Re: “Even bishops agree we don’t have to be single-issue voters” (Aug. 23, Letters): Truly, I doubt that anyone is a single-issue voter in this country. On the other hand, to suggest that certain intrinsically evil acts cannot be characterized in order of severity or outrageousness is silly.
No sane person, for instance, would vote for a candidate advocating legalization of black slavery today. On the other hand, to fail to see that abortion is designed to, and in fact is accomplishing, a measure of black genocide in our society is to remain lost in a world of fantasy.
So yes, we can always conjure up in our minds a scenario where abortion is less a factor in voting for a candidate than another issue. But, realistically, if you don’t have the right to live, at least to those not granted that right by our laws, what good are are any other rights we may have? Seems like a hollow victory, at least to them.
I suggest, rather, that if you can’t trust your potential candidate to get something as basic as the right to life correct, then you probably shouldn’t trust that person with your wallet, your safety, or your own beloved freedoms you hold so dear.
Gary Nelson, Modesto
This story was originally published August 23, 2016 at 5:24 PM with the headline "Gary Nelson: If candidates don’t hold life sacred, what else can you trust them with?."