10.21.2004

Our only Pro-Life option

I apologize in advance for politicizing again. I just wanted to point out that there is a truly pro-life option for president this year. Unfortunately, I did not know about him until today. He's been endorsed by Dr. R.C. Sproul, which is no small thing as Sproul is a huge influence in the evangelical world. No stump speeches--I just wanted people to be aware that you can actually vote for a pro-life candidate if you wanted to. Maybe if these third-party guys get enough votes, the major two parties will change their views too. And I'm not being tongue-in-cheek--if you are really concerned about this issue, and it's clear that you should be concerned--you now have a real option for president. The question is: Is the abortion issue so important that you would vote for someone you know won't be elected? If the answer is "it's important, but not important enough to throw my vote away," then I wonder if there aren't other things that appear to be equally important. There's nothing wrong with that, I just wonder what they are. (So comment and tell me what they are.)

4 Comments:

Blogger John McCollum said...

Or, you could ask it a different way:

Is the abortion issue so important that you'd vote for someone with whom you disagree on almost every other issue?

An interesting question for all of us who were/are/may be "one-issue voters."

10/21/2004 6:06 PM  
Blogger John McCollum said...

E--

Now you've joined the chorus of numbskulls (and I say that will great fondness) who fallaciously try to conflate the terms 'pro-life' and 'anti-abortion.'

It's hard for me to see how someone who opposes nearly all form of gun control, and who apparently would shut down all government programs he considers 'unconstitutional entitlements,' (what? public education, welfare, medicaid?) to be 'pro-life.'

Your tongue obviously IS in your cheek almost as far as this candidate's head is in his arse.

I love you, man.

10/21/2004 6:13 PM  
Blogger yomama said...

jmc- the answer to your first question- forme is yes.
and i agree with you about the how the term pro-life is used...

and i agree that this administration is laregly not pro-life (w/ the exception of abortion).

but i feel like the other issues- i can have more influence over.

eric...
"Is the abortion issue so important that you would vote for someone you know won't be elected?"

the abortion issue is too important to vote for someone who won't get elected. therefore i feel the need to go with the candidate who will help to promote the lives of unborn and limit legislation that promotes abortion.
maureen

10/21/2004 6:30 PM  
Blogger e said...

john--i can't get one past you. did you see that he wants to repeal the ban on assault weapons because it's "draconian"? i can't even wrap my numbskull/mind around the contradictions in that one.

maureen--respectfully, i'm not sure that there is a candidate that fits your profile. kerry is not pro-life (though he is anti-gun), bush said he will not really do anything about it ("no litmus tests for supreme court justices"), and this "constitution party" guy is anti-abortion but pro- (really really pro-)gun. if this is the issue, where do you go with it? i'm NOT saying you're wrong: if you really think republicans are the answer to stopping this calamity, what is the evidence they're doing something about it now, while they're enjoying legislative, executive, and judicial majorities?

10/21/2004 11:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home