By the time you get this the Pipers will probably have bought their first dog. Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion and for those who endorse the right to life.

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good Governor or Mayor or President. But there are numerous single issues which 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. And on and on. Everybody knows a single issue which 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 characteristics would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, a woman who disliked cats would not have been disqualified to be my wife, a woman who disliked 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 fiance” 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 any of those.

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.”

I wonder: if the eight-week-old human fetus (with beating heart, EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity) is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment (“no state shall deprive any person of life ... without due process of law”), then is the fetus at least an animal? Could we 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?

I would not vote for a person who endorsed such an evil even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.

Earnestly,

Pastor John