If a candidate who supported terrorism asked for your vote, would you say, “I disagree with you on terrorism, but where do you stand on other issues?”

So begins an excellent recent column by Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life. We feature it here as a guest editorial. It continues …

In fact, if a terrorism sympathizer presented him/herself for your vote, you would im mediately know that such a position disqualifies the candidate for public office — no mat ter how good he or she might be on other issues. The horror of terrorism dwarfs whatever good might be found in the candidate's plan for housing, education or health care. Regarding those plans, you wouldn't even ask.

So why do so many people say, “This candidate favors legal abortion. I disagree. But I'm voting for this person because she has good ideas about health care [or some other issue].”

Such a position makes no sense whatsoever, unless one is completely blind to the violence of abortion. That, of course, is the problem. But we need only see what abortion looks like, or read descriptions from the abortionists themselves, and the evidence is clear. (USA Today refused to sell me space for an ad that quoted abortionists describing their work because the readers would be traumatized just by the words!)

Abortion is no less violent than terrorism. Any candidate who says abortion should be kept legal disqualifies him/herself from public service. We need look no further, we need pay no attention to what that candidate says on other issues. Support for abortion is enough for us to decide not to vote for such a person.

Pope John Paul II put it this way: “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Christifideles Laici, 1988).

False and illusory. Those are strong and clear words that call for our further reflection.

“I stand for adequate and comprehensive health care.” So far, so good. But as soon as you say that a procedure that tears the arms off of little babies is part of “health care,” then your understanding of the term “health care” is obviously quite different from the actual meaning of the words. In short, you lose credibility. Your claim to health care is “illusory.” It sounds good but is in fact destructive, because it masks an act of violence.

“My plan for adequate housing will succeed.” Fine. But what are houses for if not for people to live in them? If you allow the killing of the children who would otherwise live in those houses, how am I supposed to get excited by your housing project?

It's easy to get confused by all the arguments in an election year. But if you start by asking where candidates stand on abortion, you can eliminate a lot of other questions you needn't even ask.