Stephen F. Kislock, III – 8/22/08

This page was last updated on August 26, 2008.

Abortion ranks low as an election issue; Stephen F. Kislock, III; Beaver County Times; August 22, 2008.

Most of Mr. Kislock’s 30+ letters over the last four years have been Republican-bashing exercises.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“The least important issue in this presidential election is abortion.”

[RWC] Hmm, Mr. Kislock believes killing unborn children for convenience is the “least important issue in this presidential election.” That pretty much tells us what we need to know about Mr. Kislock. The rest of the letter is a list of bogus reasons why Mr. Kislock supports killing unborn children for convenience. They are nothing new. They’re among the list we’ve heard for years.

“The environment: Without safe drinking water and clean air to breathe, the chance for a child to have a healthy life is greatly diminished.”

[RWC] I didn’t know we didn’t have “safe drinking water and clean air to breathe.”

“Health care: If the pro-life movement is serious about outlawing abortion, what of infant mortality? A death is a death, correct? Without universal health care, the United States’ infant mortality rate is 6.4 per 1,000 births. Sweden’s rate is 2.8, Japan’s rate is 3.2, and Canada’s rate is 4.6. If the pro-life movement is serious, then fight for universal health care and save all the babies.”

[RWC] Mr. Kislock’s own data says so-called “universal health care” (a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly) doesn’t “save all the babies.” Further, the data doesn’t indicate so-called “universal health care” has any effect on infant mortality.

“Jobs: The pro-life movement must fight for good-paying jobs so only one parent has to work. Bring back the jobs that were sent overseas and save the family. Economics, birth control and sex education do play a role in abortions.”

[RWC] “[S]ave the family?” The first step to doing that is to eliminate government programs that replace the father (welfare, AFDC, etc.). Does anyone care to guess what position Mr. Kislock would take on that issue?

“Pro-life and pro-war is an oxymoron if there ever was one. How can one support war when children are the first to suffer and die?”

[RWC] Mr. Kislock needs to check his dictionary for the definition of oxymoron. In any case, I suppose this means Mr. Kislock would have opposed the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and World War II.

“What about all the child soldiers?

“When does life begin and when does the pro-life movement in the United States quit caring about life?”

[RWC] Mr. Kislock forgot the classic pro-abortion chestnuts about capital punishment and adopting orphans. You know, the pro-life movement must abolish capital punishment for convicted murderers and adopt all orphans before it can oppose killing unborn children for convenience. Maybe he’ll remember them for his next pro-abortion letter.

“Until the United States has universal health care, jobs and peace, these are my reasons for supporting choice. If it’s abortion, so be it.”

[RWC] Actually, Mr. Kislock is violating one of the left’s rules for debating this issue. If you recall, only women are allowed to have an opinion on this issue, and only if they were ever in a position where they actually considered abortion.

Finally, you’ll note Mr. Kislock didn’t tell us his position on babies that survive an abortion attempt. As we learned recently, the Democrat candidate for President, Barack Obama (then a state senator), voted against an Illinois law that would have guaranteed care for babies that survived an abortion attempt.