Abortion and voting ?

Maybe not the abortion, but the idea of a new creature in Christ voting to put people in power that allow the policy to continue, yes, you will be held accountable. Having said that, if you believe that a politician that opposes abortion really cares about the sanctity of life, instead of caring about getting votes to continue or establish his or her own power, you need to get a new frame of reference to percieve good from evil. Politicans are politicians, and whether for or against abortion, they have about the same character. (none)

 

In an election, abortion legislation, is not the only issue to good government. There are completely godless people who are against abortion for their own reasons, but they may be the worst candidate for good government.

We are responsible to vote...period.

Then we must choose the candidate which best stands for good government. Then we may consider side issues, of which, abortion is one.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I, personally, can not and will not vote for anyone who supports abortion on demand, no matter what they are runing for. I know that there are other inmortant issues, but this is the first and foremost for me. I'm not going to have any part in putting someone in office that won't protect unborn babies.

Can a government be "good" when it intentionally fails or when it refuses to protect innocent human life?

 

No. There are a multitude of issues to consider when voting. Voting based on one issue is very, very unwise. I am afraid that many, many Christians have voted for Republican candidates based on this one issue alone and now look at the mess - a no-win situation in Iraq, $500-600 billion a year national deficits, larger and more intrusive government, etc.

Not that the Democrats would be any better on any of these issues.

Our default two-party system is pretty much broken.

 

SO, a person running for dog catcher who cannot impact the issue at all doesn't get your vote if he or she is the best dog catcher in the world, yet is personally pro-choice? :BangHead:

 

Until we demand a change, this is the way things are, and a vote for one is a vote against the other.

So, you are stuck to voting for the lesser of two evils. Sometimes the choice is between a candidate who wants abortion on demand and one who wants to prevent abortions in 1% of the cases. Well, which one's better? (Although, it is important to remember that we didn't get to where we are overnight, and we won't get back overnight either. Baby steps.)

At least, at the state and local level, you can vote for a third party candidate and have some reasonable expectation that they are electable, but until a law is passed requiring a majority to win, you will have people winning with much less than 50% of the vote.

 

Not so. If I can't find a candidate that I can vote for, then I can just skip that particular race on the ballot.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Christians have no excuse for voting for what they consider to be evil.

 

Hold it....Who changed the parameters to abortion on demand, in other words, birth control after-the-fact?

I only saw the one word abortion. Don't change the question mid stream.

Cheers,

Jim

 

In our current system, which has been foisted on us by the mighty behemoth of government that is interested only in self-preservation, at the national level, not voting turns into a vote for the greater of two evils.

So, it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils or the greater of two evils.

 

I totally disagree. Our positions are obviously irreconcilable so we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

I really don't care if you spoil your ballot, but you must get out and vote.

I fought a war for that freedom. To not vote is like spitting on the grave of every soldier who gave his life for that right.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I disagree. If the political system if producing pretty much nothing but trash to vote for, then voting is a very viable option to send a message to the political establishment that we disapprove of the candidates that it is giving us to vote for.

That is not an option I am ready to exercise but I have no problem with those that refuse to play along with the politicians.

 

Here is where I stand on this...

A person that says that it is OK for a woman to abort her baby, is morally disqualified to run for office. As would be someone that says blacks are not human, or one that says it is alright to beat his wife...

This is the best article I have ever seen on this issue... It is from John Piper, and can be downloaded from e-sword. It is sorta long, but it is well worth your read.

A Christian that will vote for a pro-choice candidate will have to give account to God why he or she did. And if you feel comfortable standing before the creator of the universe, the creator of life, knowing that you helped support the murder of babies, I worry about your soul.

Yes that is a little strong, but I am very passionate about babies. Baby Killers and their supporters should be prosecuted... And I will fight politically until that is accomplished in the US.

OH, Here is the article:

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society​

Pondering One-Issue Politics and Cruelty To Animals
Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter?
No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that 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. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that 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 qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking 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 fiancé 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 those.
When we bought our dog 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."
Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that "no state shall deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law." Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not 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?
These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil-even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.
* * * This article is from A Godward Life, Book I: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life by John Piper (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 1997), pp. 279-280. Used with permission.

 

I did that one time and as far as I know my write-in vote was not even acknowledged.

I'll stick to skipping races where I don't feel comfortable voting for anyone on the ballot.

Just think of the reaction if we had a presidential election and only 30% of those of voting age voted or if 70% voted for someone other than the Democratic or Republican candidates. It would send shockwaves through our political system.

 

I'm with you Ken!

 

1. I, and many voters in America voted for Bush based on one issue: The war in Iraq and support for winning it. I think you are wrong to say that it is a no win situation. I would agree that some of the ways the war has been run has caused it to be no-win. For example, listening to anti-war isolationists and making life easier for the terrorists.

2. The national deficit didn't start with Bush so it is disingenuous to act as if this started with Bush. I notice you didn't mention all the good economic news of recent times.

3. You are correct that Bush has increased the size of government with NCLB.

4. If I could criticize Bush honestly on two issues, it would be education and immigration.

Joseph Botwinick

 

This is why I usally end up voting against one person as opposed to for the other. Not voting at all is the same as 1 vote for the winner.

Not only will I stand but I will stand proudly wearing the righteousness of the Son and second part of the God head. I know you are writing from passion but we should always be careful not to distort scripture for getting our point across. I'm not saying I am pro choice but I am certianly against some of the scare tactics and drama some are using.

 

If the CP would abandon their anti-war isolationist stance and anti-semitic attitudes, I would have voted for them. Nobody's perfect on this earth and if you don't vote, then just be quiet. It doesn't matter, in the end, who you vote for on this earth. You will always be voting for the lesser of the evils.

Joseph Botwinick