Christians Who Voted for Obama Should Not Lie About Their Support for Abortion

[HankD]

I agree. That's why I said single-issue voting is usually unwise. Making a judgement upon a person who voted for a candidate based on a single issue is usually unrighteous. There are always exceptions.

A strong Pro-life position must be at the TOP of the candidates requirements list for my vote.

There are several other criteria following but if pro-life is not at the top with a voting record to match, that candidate does not get my vote.

Also I won't vote for a Democrat under any condition because the Dem Party Platform officially supports the so-called pro-choice position.
That goes for any party, If the pro-life/pro-choice issue is missing, neutral or nebulous, I won't vote for their candidate(s).

If an independent does not indicate their position on abortion they have lost my potential vote.

If that makes me unrighteous, so be it.

HankD

 

[targus]

I agree. That's why I said single-issue voting is usually unwise. Making a judgement upon a person who voted for a candidate based on a single issue is usually unrighteous. There are always exceptions.

I have heard the "I am not a single issue voter" many times and wonder what are the other issues individually or combined that are more important than the life of even one unborn child?

 

[OldRegular]

SN

Your bias is clouding your judgment. There was not and is still not a Conservative Supreme Court. Even if there had been the Republicans did not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. They did get the Partial Abortion Ban passed, signed by President Bush, and upheld by the Court after Clinton vetoed it twice. That procedure was too much even for some democrat Senators. But to believe the Republicans could have gotten a bill through the Senate further restricting abortion is a pipe dream.

 

[OldRegular]

Republicans are in essence using innocent blood to purchase votes.

That is the same crap I would expect from "whoever"; alias: alatide, Freedom, JustChristian, or BaptistBeliever.

 

[OldRegular]

No actually it has not. The rate of abortion from 2001-2009 was the same as the previous eight years. The goal is to stop it. Approving of phoney attempts to do so, or to pretend liberal Republican administrations are conservative do not help solve the problem.

Those who create the false divide between the two parties are the problem, aid and abet continuing the status quo on abortion, and are just as guilty as the Democrats who push the agenda. The law of the land considers aiding and abetting a murder just as guilty as the one who committed the act.

The Biography of a Bad Statistic
May 25, 2005
Updated: May 26, 2005
Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be - and lives on.

Summary

Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently*contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece*that used data from*only 16 states. A*study by*the*Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.

http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html


Where are the fruits?
Why Stassen’s claims that Bush’s policies increased abortion are baseless

by Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., Director of Education & Research and Laura Hussey, M.P.M., Special Research Assistant, National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund

In an opinion piece spreading over local newspapers and the internet, Glen Harold Stassen, the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, claims that after years of decline, abortions have increased under the watch of pro-life President George W. Bush.

Attributing the alleged abortion increase to an economic downturn, Stassen argues that the way to reduce abortions is to elect a president who will “do something about jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers” rather than one who merely offers pro-life “rhetoric.” His intended implication is that pro-lifers should vote for Kerry, the “pro-choice” candidate, to reduce the number of abortions.

While this twist of sense and logic is breathtaking, Stassen has a bigger problem – neither his data nor his argument hold up under scrutiny.


http://www.nrlc.org/rko/stassenpart2.html

 

[OldRegular]

Single-issue voting is usually unwise. Making a judgement upon a person who voted for a candidate based on a single issue is usually unrighteous.

Proverbs 6:16-19

16. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17. A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18. An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19. A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

It seems you are in disagreement with God!

 

[OldRegular]

There is complete logic in it. They had the votes, and they had the power. What they did not have is the passion, moral bearing, or intelligence to pass the legislation. Again, this is nothing but giving liberal Republicans a pass because they are Republicans. If you have a Republican Congress and a Republican President, how do you not pass your agenda? It is nothing but exchanging votes to win power in exchange for blood.

SN
You have to make a serious effort to be wrong so many times on so many things. I have already pointed out that the Republicans did not have the votes in the Senate. You continue to throw the Constitution around. You should know something about the rules of the Senate.

 

[OldRegular]

Where oh where are all the Obama supporters on this Forum; where oh where can they be?

 

[Johnv]

A strong Pro-life position must be at the TOP of the candidates requirements list for my vote.

You hit the nail on the head, on two counts. It's at the top of your list, which says you ahve a list. That's quite respectable. Also, you said that this is a requirement for your vote. Also respectable.

What is not adviseable is when a person has only one item on their list. Doesn't matter if that one item is abortion, the death penalty, the economy, the war, or any other such item. What is further not adviseable is when a person requires other voters to adhere to their list.

You haven't indicated to me that you're doing this, so I don't see a problem with your personal voting view.

It seems you are in disagreement with God!

How am I in disagreement with God, simply because I find single-issue voting unadviseable?

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
It seems you are in disagreement with God!

How am I in disagreement with God, simply because I find single-issue voting unadviseable?

No! Because you say: "Making a judgement upon a person who voted for a candidate based on a single issue is usually unrighteous." The single issue is the slaughter of the unborn. That is innocent blood!

 

[Johnv]

You're even going further. You're saying that it's unrighteous for a person to not make a judgement upon a person who voted for a candidate based on a single issue.

 

[targus]

What is further not adviseable is when a person requires other voters to adhere to their list.

How exactly does one "require others to adhere to their list"?

By arguing in favor of their own position?

You seem to be requiring others to adhere to your list which is "don't be a single issue voter".

 

[Johnv]

How exactly does one "require others to adhere to their list"?

BY saying "if you support a candidate who supports [insert issue here], then you're [insert judgement here]". But here, it gets even worse. We have people whoa re saying "if you don't admonish others for not being single issue, then you're [insert judgement here]".

You seem to be requiring others to adhere to your list which is "don't be a single issue voter".

Well, you can't have it both ways. If you're admonishing me for my list, then you should likewise admonish others for their list.

 

[tinytim]

But it is not hard to understand this point...

If you support a candidate who supports (insert issue).. then when you cast your vote, you also support (insert issue)

Soo... it follows that if you support a candidate who supports abortion, you are supporting abortion when you vote for said candidate.

That is very dangerous.

It would be the same with Homosexual marriage.

That is why we must be very careful when we cast our vote...

What about a pro-lifer who supports homosexual marriage... They would NOT be supported by me. The single issue switches from abortion to Homosexual marriage in that case...

But why is it that usually you see the ones that support abortion also support homosexual marriage, and promoting animal and creation rights as high as human rights?

Usually if one part of the equation is perverted, it perverts the whole equation.

 

[Johnv]

If you support a candidate who supports (insert issue).. then when you cast your vote, you also support (insert issue)

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate. If the above were a litmus test, then all Christians who voted for nonabolitionist presidents should be met with the same disdain as those who voted for a candidate who did not support a ban on abortion.

 

[targus]

BY saying "if you support a candidate who supports [insert issue here], then you're [insert judgement here]". But here, it gets even worse. We have people whoa re saying "if you don't admonish others for not being single issue, then you're [insert judgement here]".

No, making judgements (right or wrong) about the voting of others as it relates to Christian beliefs isn't "requiring" anyone to do anything.

Unless one party is some sort of cult leader and the others are his followers - and that certainly cannot be said of participation on this board.

We don't even know who anyone really is - just ask JustChristian, Freedom or alatide. They can vouch for me.:smilewinkgrin:

Well, you can't have it both ways. If you're admonishing me for my list, then you should likewise admonish others for their list.

Not all lists are the same.

AndI am not admonishing you - I am just trying to figure out what individual issue or combination of issues out weighs the life of even a single unborn child.

 

[alatide]

Everything that was posted above about the Democrats and abortion is 100% true, and those that support such garbage will be held accountable.

But make no mistake about it. Republican hands are dripping with the blood of the innocent. Superficial attempts to appear to oppose abortion are not good enough. For eight years, they had a Republican President, Republican Congress, and a conservative Supreme Court, and nothing was done to stop the slaughter. Republicans will flap their jaws around election time about moral values and abortion. Enter Foley, Vitter, Sanford, Ensign, and Craig. So much for the moral values. Republicans are in essence using innocent blood to purchase votes.

Actions like limiting federal funds for abortion is a red herring. The fact is that the slaughter continues unabated. Who cares who pays for the evil? Evil is evil. At the very least the worthless outgoing administration could have forced the issue before the Supreme Court, which might have remanded it back to the states. They did not even lift a finger to do that. They had the power, and the votes and did nothing.

So when all you self righteous Republicans get a belly full of what is being dished out now, (and it is your fault this administration is in power for tolerating a liberal, inept administration for the last eight years), then maybe it will get through your thick heads that repeating the same old cycle is not the answer. But you won't. You will attach yourselves to another pseudo conservative from the Republican Party in 2012, and it will start all over again.

The Obama adminstration is good enough for every one of you Republican apologists. It is exactly what you deserve.

Nothing was done during the George HW Bush or the Ronald Reagan administrations either. It was all hypocrisy and talk designed to get the Christian Right vote.

 

[billwald]

Candidates seldom run on their party's platform. They do their best to ignore it.

 

[Johnv]

... making judgements (right or wrong) about the voting of others as it relates to Christian beliefs isn't "requiring" anyone to do anything.

But it is usually unrighteous.

 

[tinytim]

There's no such thing as a perfect candidate. If the above were a litmus test, then all Christians who voted for nonabolitionist presidents should be met with the same disdain as those who voted for a candidate who did not support a ban on abortion.

I agree, they should.