In November, this newspaper said I was pro-choice. That report was grossly exaggerated.

Back on Nov. 21 Maine’s ever-vigilant and always contrarian political columnist, Al Diamon, nailed a confusing sentence in The Associated Press report in the Sun Journal titled “Frary to Challenge Michaud for House seat”

I quote from Diamon’s Downeast.com Media Mutt blog: “According to the AP, ‘Frary said he does agree with Michaud on some issues, such a woman’s right to have an abortion.’ That sentence might lead a casual reader to conclude that both the incumbent and the challenger were pro-choice. Which would be wrong. More or less. Frary is firmly against abortion, while Michaud voted consistently pro-life while he served in the legislature, but since moving to D.C. in 2002 has become…incoherent.”

The AP reporter’s confusion is understandable. Michaud’s record on the issue has become increasingly blurred. Although various articles and blogs found on the Internet refer to him as a pro-life Democrat, NARAL, Pro-Choice America gave him a 100 percent rating in 2007 and 65 percent in 2006.

I believe it is generally understood that ambiguity and incoherence is the preferred stance on difficult issues for professional politicians. As his opponent, I can’t represent myself as an objective interpreter of his motives.

Rep. Michaud has a responsibility to his constituents, and a paid press secretary to write complete sentences for him, so it seemed fair to wait for him to clear up the confusion sowed by the AP report. This has not happened. So it is left to me to clarify my own position.

I am, indeed, “firmly against abortion.” There is an odd convention that describes a pro-choice position as the “moderate” one. Abortion supporters like this. Moderation is nice; immoderation not very nice.

Actually we have a conflict of two principles – sanctity of life and sanctity of liberty – which cannot be reconciled. I suppose it might be argued that an immoderate position on one side would be prison sentences for abortion and, on the other, post-natal abortion as advocated by the Princeton University philosopher, Peter Singer. But these are not on the table as real political issues. There is, in fact, no “moderate position.” A commitment to the sanctity of liberty is not contemptible in itself, but it cannot be an absolute.

There are degrees of intensity. Some abortion opponents see abortion as infanticide pure and simple. They see murdered babies. Those, like myself, who do not possess such a powerful moral imagination take a stand on the more abstract principle of the sanctity of human life. On the other side there are those who have had an abortion, or supported one. They naturally resent the suggestion that they are evil people and prefer a politician who appears to support their decision. For a practical politician the best solution in Maine’s 2nd District is to appear sufficiently pro-life to satisfy one group, but to avoid hurting anybody’s feeling by talking about it.

I will not, in fact, be talking much about it since it is not an issue which the House of Representatives has much control over. All the more reason to take advantage of this opportunity to state my position clearly. I am pro-life.

I am not a stranger to the personal difficulties of making that choice. I’ve seen it up close and very personally. It must be wrenching for most people, and thoughts of a son or daughter they will never know must burden them at times.

As a representative I could not vote for funds supporting abortion projects of any kind. I see no justice in forcing taxpayers who oppose abortion to participate in what they see as murder. Never mind philosophical arguments, pragmatically such measures give needless grief for paltry ends. The large numbers of affluent citizens, including some Republicans, who favor abortion as a means of cleaning up messy situations or reducing the welfare roles have the financial means to fund such projects voluntarily. It seems intolerably arrogant for them to insist that their views be indirectly imposed by legislation.

Former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s proposal for a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion seems futile to me. The public will never agree with the measures necessary to enforce such a prohibition. The only solution is a cultural change. Nevertheless I would feel compelled to vote for such an amendment on principal. If this seems contradictory, it would be a greater contradiction to vote against such an amendment. It comes down to this. A vote against this amendment would be taken as approval of abortion.

John Frary is a Republican candidate for Congress in Maine’s 2nd District. He lives in Farmington. E-mail [email protected].