Featured Why voting for Donald Trump is not a morally good choice.

Fetuses begin development on body systems very, very early, many things within the first month, before many women realize they are pregnant. I remember reading that the heart begins to beat at only three weeks. Even before anything else is in place, a fetus has it's own unique DNA, making it it's own person.
So yes, I am prolife for scientific and logical reasons. Because if my faith cannot be consistent with logic, then what good is it. (edit: Can of worms, I would argue that the Bible doesn't really give a direct view on abortion. It's more a topic that gets lumped in the overarching reach of "sanctity of life".)

And again, abortion is not the only issue of importance. If a candidate is pro-life but has terrible ideas otherwise, I will not vote for them.

 

"Faith" has little to do with logic. Do you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead?

 

Yes, because logically the God who made the universe can bend the laws of reality.

 

LOL What I believe is that you are confused. I pray you continue to study the Bible and grow as a Christian. Disregarding the teachings of the Bible when it is inconsistent with what you think is "logical" is no way to start. Putting your faith on the shelf when it is inconvenient with what you want or desire is hopefully not where you will end your journey.

 

Nice to see you're just dodging my actual points and just trying to come up with something to call me out on. (What fallacy does that fall under? Red herring? Poisoning the well?)
I don't usually comment when I see this happening and instead try to stick to the heart of the matter, but since that is all there is to comment on in this case--

Though I will say this (and in doing so take the bait, which can only take us off-topic): Contrary to what you may think I am primarily theologically conservative. I hold Scripture as an authority. You are assuming things about my entire doctrinal base based off a handful of posts on only one topic.

 

You made the posts. They are revealing. Your faith has to be compatible with logic or it's no good. You did say that.

That's all I need to know.

 

I did. However that doesn't mean I toss out Scripture or drop doctrines that do not match what seems reasonable to me. It means I try to reconcile my faith with reason--and God gave us as humans the ability to reason so I believe that logically His word will be reconcilable with reason.
That doesn't mean I have an explanation for everything, and I think there will always be unanswered questions. And that is where faith comes into the equation for me. I trust God because I know Him, and because analyzing every detail before putting any faith in would be extremely tiring.

But at this point I am getting off topic. I do not believe voting for a pro-choice candidate to be in conflict with my faith. As I have said three times now, there is more involved in this election than that. It'd be stupid to vote for a candidate only because of one position they hold.
For a second point, there are no perfect candidates. In the end you still have to go for the best, or lose all faith in the way our political system.

Please use arguments that actually challenge my reasoning on the original topic. Don't tell me I'm wrong and need to get right, or deflect by attacking my person instead of the topic. Challenge my thinking. That's how people learn.

 

Therein lies the problem.

 

Ignoring my points again. Okay.

I'm libertarian. I do not believe the government should make laws based off the Bible, that is an essential part of libertarianism. Libertarians believe people should be free to practice whatever religion they see fit, this means not basing the nation's laws off a religion. This is also another part of why I'm prolife for scientific and logical reasons--in the political sphere I no longer see my religious beliefs as being relevant.

My faith and my views regarding how the government should operate are two separate things. If you want to try to convince me this is wrong, you'll need to addressing my reasoning head-on.

 

You're a few hundred years late.

 

Gary Johnson is more than pro choice. He's a walking disaster.

1. Believes the government should furnish heroin addicts with their drugs and administer them. Free of charge.

"...if you're a heroin addict, and your supplier is arrested, and now comes a new supplier of heroin, and visually you're taking the same dose that you've taken before, but it's of a different quality and a different quantity, and it ends up killing you. So when you look at programs like Zurich, Switzerland, where they have a heroin maintenance program, the idea was no more overdose deaths, because as a heroin addict, you could get your dose, it would be a free dose, but you wouldn't die of an overdose."


2. An open borders advocate. No such thing as an illegal entry.

"My vision of the border with Mexico is that a truck from the United States going into Mexico and a truck coming from Mexico into the United States will pass each other at the border going 60 miles an hour. Yes, we should have open borders."


3. A strong advocate of gay marriage and believes Christian business owners should be prosecuted if they won't bake a cake with a gay marriage theme.

Bottom line, he doesn't believe Christians should be able to exercise their faith as the constitution requires. Just like Hillary and Obama.

4. Like Obama...would not take our enemies seriously.

...thinks the threat of radical Islam is “overblown”


5. Would cut military spending 43%, a common problem with all libertarians.

 

Not according to 1st Amendment.

 

Biblical principles run rampant in our laws throughout our history. Denial for the sake of political convenience does you no credit.

http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government

Now , if you want , you can go to an athiest website and get some really good, but specious, rebuttals.

 

Because our nation has a history of passing laws for something does not make it justified, nor Constitutional.

As to the link, picking and choosing ideas and slapping verses on them is something you can do with virtually anything, especially if you're ignoring the context.
Neither would I call influence--if that could be actually proven the case, the site seems to be reaching to me--prove that our USA was intended to be a "Christian nation". Definitely not in the way that neo-conservatives argue. A culture and society is also a separate thing from the government. (We certainly have a history of Christianity as a culture, as a society.)

I'd kind of prefer you give me arguments directly, instead of letting webpages do your talking for you. Especially when those are the kind of sites I used back when I was neo-conservative. They're a dime-a-dozen. (As are atheist pages angrily asserting the opposite, of course.)

 

You're a hoot. Your "culture" sets the tone for government.

Try this. A hint: key word "principles"

http://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-7-number-1/biblical-foundations-limited-government

 

Culture and government are related in a sense, certainly. Culture influences the government since the government and culture are both made up of people who hold specific ideas.
However, that does not change the fact that making laws in favor of Christian morals is a violation of the 1st amendment.

I would thank you to stop making comments on my person that have nothing to do with the topic. That is dishonest in a debate setting and quite unChrist-like. (Though that mode of communication is the norm on this forum.)

 

One word , Bengazi.

 

I do not see any candidates as paragons of virtue. However, I see Trump as the least in virtue of all the candidates. Thus, it is more immoral to vote for him than any other any other candidate.