Mike DeWine – “pro-life” or just pro-fetus?
By Jim Irvine
Recently the Dayton Daily News (DDN) printed an editorial touting the reasons why, “Ohioans can be proud of DeWine.” It said in part:
- He represents the social values that are important to Ohioans, having maintained a 100 percent pro-life voting record.
- At a time when the public's belief in government is at an all-time low, Mike DeWine is an elected official Ohio can be proud of. He deserves our support in November.
I submitted the following response, which the DDN chose not to print.
- I disagree with Friday’s editorial (Ohioans can be proud of DeWine, by Peggy Lehner) claiming Mike DeWine has, “a 100 percent pro-life voting record.” He may have a great anti-abortion record, but DeWine has a terrible record defending life after birth. The best means of self-defense, especially for women and the elderly is a firearm. DeWine has worked hard to insure thugs, rapists, and murders do not need to fear a victim able to defend themselves.
To believe DeWine is “pro-life” is to believe that life ends at birth. It does not.
Jim Irvine, Chairman
Buckeye Firearms Association
14761 Pearl Road #308
Cleveland OH 44136
Life is important. Without life, we have nothing else on earth. Concealed carry is about protecting life. A firearm allows a would-be victim of robbery, rape, or murder to stand up to their attacker. It allows them to win the battle for their life and their dignity. It allows them to go home from the traumatic event and begin the road to recovery and back to a normal life.
Studies have shown that in most instances, the firearm allows this great benefit to its owner without a shot being fired. Criminals do not like to be shot. They are typically cowards who run away as soon as they realize they picked the wrong victim. They are opportunists who know that most people do not possess adequate means of self-defense and are happy to escape and wait for a better opportunity.
On rare occasions, the attacker will continue the attack, even when confronting deadly force. In this case, the victim must use force, including deadly force to stop the attack. Some complain that the victim is taking the life of the criminal, and taking a life is never right. Realistically, the victim is not “taking a life” but simply deciding which life will be saved. The attacker has decided that someone is going to die. An armed victim is not choosing “life or death” but who will live. To do nothing allows the killer to live and thus to he may continue to kill until they are stopped either by incarceration or by deadly force, most likely by an intended victim who understands how important life is. To defend your life from the attacker is good both for the victim, and for society.
By saving their own life, one also prevents irreparable harm to their spouse, children, parents and extended family and friends. By choosing to do nothing they are rewarding evil and enabling senseless killing to continue.
It is ironic that the “National Right to Life” organization does not fully support defending life after birth. Neither does the Catholic Church in many Archdioceses. As a practicing Catholic, I find this hypocritical stance by the church troubling. Though I have asked many times, I have yet to receive anything close to a reasonable answer. They “don’t like guns.” I don’t like rapists or murderers. It seems like a simple choice to me.
Hamsters are animals. If a “Protection of animals” group worked hard at protecting all hamsters, but actively supported the torture, maiming, and killing of puppies, and kittens and bunnies we would not consider them a pro-animal group at all. They would simple be pro-hamster.
We should not tolerate such hypocritical behavior from groups claiming to be for the protection of human life. If they work at protecting fetuses, but against defending life after birth, they should call themselves “National Right to birth.”
We each need to challenge the so-called “pro-life” groups. If you are going to call yourself pro-life, you need to be pro-life. Anti-abortion is not "pro-life." Anti-euthanasia is not "pro-life." There is a lot of “life” between birth and convalescence and to be "pro-life" you must be for protecting all of it. Mike DeWine and any organization who claims to value life, but opposes concealed carry are hypocrites, and that is simple not acceptable anymore.
Op-ed: No vote for DeWine