Should a Christian ever vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

[yxboom]

Bob Enyart Debates Greg Koukl, Oct 26 on Truth Talk Live! (http://kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20071026)

the topic up for debate, is it moral for a Christian to vote for a pro-choice candidate. greg koukl argues for support for rudy guliani; bob enyart responds that under no circumstance is a christian to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

That should be interesting.

Well OK, the subject could be interesting. Bob Enyart is crazy, so the debate could be anything from interesting to maniacal.

[jwarrend]

I assume the debate focused on the question of whether one should vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate, and based on the notes provided at the linked site (I didn't listen to the debate), the debate appears to have raised this question not in the abstract, but instead in the specific context of whether American Christians should support Giuliani's candidacy or not.

Enyart appears to decry pragmatism on this issue, but the reality is probably a bit more complicated. Here is a very silly example. Let's say there's a presidential candidate who promises to, by executive order, prohibit abortion as of the first day of his presidency. But, he will also disband the US Military, and at the first sign of Canadian troops crossing the border, will surrender unconditionally and will abdicate our national sovereignty to Canada. We would get our desired end to abortion, but of what value is that if we lost our country -- and its laws -- in the process?

Of course, nothing like this would ever happen, but the point it makes is that there is more to consider, and more at stake, than the legality or illegality of abortion. There is more that we need to require of our president; there are more balls that he will have to juggle.

It's important to keep in mind that we have had a pro-life president for almost 7 years and abortion has not been prohibited. The most we could realistically hope for from a president is that he would nominate "conservative" judges to the Supreme Court, who would be likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade given an appropriate case. Even this, of course, would not prevent abortions, but it would make it possible for state legislatures to pass laws in certain states that would. How many states would pass such laws? I don't know, but probably not all of them.

I think a strong pro-life candidate is great, if we can get one. That's part of the reason I tentatively think Romney is a better candidate than Giuliani. But looking to a pro-life president to end abortion is almost certainly going to end up in dashed hopes. The president's ability to end abortion is necessarily going to be slow and indirect. It is not the best way to end abortions. The best way continues to be taking advantage of the fact that abortions are not mandated. We can stop abortions by convincing people not to choose to have them. That is ultimately our best hope.

-Jeff

[yxboom]

some very excellent points.

[Darth Executor]

I'm not American but if my country is slaughtering innocent humans by the millions it doesn't deserve to survive.

[Teallaura]

I can see instances where overall the pro-choice candidate could be the better choice. I don't see that at all in the case of Guilliani.

jwarrend is incorrect on one point: it depends entirely on the basis for the over turning of Roe as to whether or not it would merely return the issue to the states or would prohibit abortion outright in the US. If the Court merely reverses Roe on the basis that it erred in creating the 'right to privacy' that would likely return the matter to the states. But if the Court goes further or overturns based on the personhood issue then the states would be overruled by the Fed. No state has the right to deprive its citizens of life without Due Process and since a fetus cannot aid counsel, is not terminally ill and is not on criminal trial the existing exceptions won't apply and gaining a new one would be a major league uphill battle.

[Bob Enyart]

Hello TWeb! This is Bob Enyart. I don't think I've ever posted here. I'm hoping this is appropriate, since a couple guys indicated they didn't listen to the debate (http://kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20071026) I wanted to post the notes I used for it here:

Christians should not support mass murderers like Rudi Giuliani (who as a governing official and candidate promotes child killing through public hospitals, tax funding, police enforcement, etc.).

Moral relativist Christians would oppose a candidate who was caught embezzling funds (not because it violates God’s command, Do not steal, but because it is politically-incorrect). And while they’d not support a Republican caught embezzling, they support Republican candidates who brag of their support for killing children.

The Gospels mention a pragmatic political party, the Herodians, the religious leaders who allied themselves with Herod Antipas, thinking that the Herodian dynasty was the lesser evil (than any alternative allegiance, with a choice between Herod or Christ, they would choose Herod), thinking the Herods were the best the Jewish worshippers could pragmatically expect in their hopes of attaining to their kingdom on Earth. (I have this understanding of the Herodians from my recollection of reading, way back in the 1970s, Alfred Edershiem’s Life & Times of Jesus the Messiah, a classic written in the 1800s.)

Like Rudi Giuliani, Herod was personally sexually immoral and murderous. Greg Koukl’s moral relativism would defend supporting Herod. But John the Baptist, instead of joining the Herodians, rebuked Herod, and for his courage, this wicked ruler beheaded the man whom Jesus described as the greatest born to women (Mat. 11:11). But how would Jesus describe Koukl? Greg’s moral relativism might have led him to campaign for Herod (as he does for Giuliani), and instead of persecution, Herod might have hired Koukl as an apologist for his murderous reign and his hopes for the continued support of Ceasar after Antipas built Tiberias (Koukl: yes, Herod murdered John the Baptist, but I would still campaign for him to rule).
Greg Koukl is imitating the pragmatic religious leaders, the Herodians.

Mat 22:16, 18 …the Herodians, [said], "Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth [lip service]… But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?” [also at Mark 12:13]

Mark 3:5-6 [Jesus saw] the hardness of their hearts, [and] the Herodians [plotted] against Him, how they might destroy Him.

"You shall not murder" (Rom. 13:9) "Do not kill the innocent" (Exodus 23:7)

Romans 3:8 mentions "do[ing] evil that good may come of it" (Romans 3:8), Paul considered it slander to be accused of something Christians now embrace, doing evil, that good may come of it.

"we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)

Giuliani is not only radically pro-abortion, but for years even supported the especially horrific partial-birth abortion. Giuliani is radically pro-homosexual, and would ban all handguns.
New York Daily News, March 8, 2004 Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage. … "I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani, who lived with a gay Manhattan couple when he moved out of Gracie Mansion during his nasty divorce.

Secular humanists who support Giuliani: Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, etc.
Publicans: tax collectors, public building contractors, and military suppliers.
The New Testament condemns the publicans, so Christians now sell their souls for the Re-publicans.

The theme of much of the Old Testament, from the books of Moses, through Joshua & Judges, through the prophets, is that God’s people did not trust Him, nor obey Him, not with national politics, and instead made alliances with wicked leaders, and so God abandoned them to their own destruction.

Thanks TWeb!

-Bob Enyart

[Trout]

:greetings:

Welcome to Tweb, Bob.

[DesertBerean]

Never thought of the points raised by warrend and Teal.

*goes back to political drawing board*

[Littlejoe9763]

I'm not American but if my country is slaughtering innocent humans by the millions it doesn't deserve to survive.

Hi Darth,

Your profile shows you to be Canadian? (That's the flag flying anyway). I didn't think there were any "legal" restrictions on abortions in Canada. According to this website... here (http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml#Therapeutic) .... there have been 2,792,355 abortions performed in Canada since 1970....so your statement (which seems to imply your country is NOT slaughtering innocent humans by the millions) doesn't really make sense to me....although I think I agree with your sentiment.

LJ

[Littlejoe9763]

Oh yeah...Hi Bob and welcome to TWEB :hi:

[jwarrend]

I can see instances where overall the pro-choice candidate could be the better choice. I don't see that at all in the case of Guilliani.

Well, the key question seems to be what one is choosing between. Giuliani better than Romney? In my opinion, probably not (for reasons other than just this issue, as well). Better than Clinton? That's a different story.


jwarrend is incorrect on one point: it depends entirely on the basis for the over turning of Roe as to whether or not it would merely return the issue to the states or would prohibit abortion outright in the US. If the Court merely reverses Roe on the basis that it erred in creating the 'right to privacy' that would likely return the matter to the states. But if the Court goes further or overturns based on the personhood issue then the states would be overruled by the Fed. No state has the right to deprive its citizens of life without Due Process and since a fetus cannot aid counsel, is not terminally ill and is not on criminal trial the existing exceptions won't apply and gaining a new one would be a major league uphill battle.

That's an important clarification. But what grounds do you think are more likely the ones that would be the cause of the hypothetical reversal?

-Jeff

[JusticeMachine]

A chirstian should vote for the canidate that is closest to their beliefs, knowing full an well that all sin and fall short of the glory of GOD, so we can't help but vote for are sinner. That said, I try to look at it like this, if both canidates are pro-abortion, then I will be voting for a pro-abortion canidate, so that is out of my criteria for picking between the two canidates presented.

[Darth Executor]

Hi Darth,

Your profile shows you to be Canadian? (That's the flag flying anyway). I didn't think there were any "legal" restrictions on abortions in Canada. According to this website... here (http://www.webhart.net/vandee/abortstat.shtml#Therapeutic) .... there have been 2,792,355 abortions performed in Canada since 1970....so your statement (which seems to imply your country is NOT slaughtering innocent humans by the millions) doesn't really make sense to me....although I think I agree with your sentiment.

LJ

You are somewhat correct, and in fact I could not care less if Canada (or my country of birth, Romania, for that matter) are destroyed as long as they support the mass extermination of innocent human beings. I only mentioned I'm not American since the OP is about an American candidate. I didn't mean to imply my country is not slaughtering innocent humans by the millions, sorry for the confusion.

[Rusty T]

I could never vote for a "pro-choice" presidential candidate. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination I will vote third party. It's sad that the Democratic Party is not even able to field one pro-life candidate.

[Teallaura]

Well, the key question seems to be what one is choosing between. Giuliani better than Romney? In my opinion, probably not (for reasons other than just this issue, as well). Better than Clinton? That's a different story.
I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to vote for Guilliani in the primary. I am not favorably impressed with him beyond his handling of 9/11.

The issue disappears between Guilliani and Clinton - both are pro-choice. It might be considered a matter of degree, I suppose, but the only pro-life candidate would either be a minority party or none-of-the-above.



That's an important clarification. But what grounds do you think are more likely the ones that would be the cause of the hypothetical reversal?

-JeffA strict constructionist court would chew up Roe so badly it would be unrecognizable. Seriously, there are so many problems with Roe that it's hard to say what grounds the Court might pick. Right to privacy, 'personhood' and the term system are the most likely areas to be reversed but which if not all, I really couldn't guess at this point. It depends on the precise make up of the Court at the time. If Scalia and Thomas prevail you can bet the whole thing bites the big one but Roberts and the new justice who's name begins with an 'A' (it's 11 pm, I just finished mutilating vegetables and you're gonna be lucky if any of this is coherent so my inability to recall the man's name is probably the least of this post's worries) seem more moderate to date so if they prevail the Court might well be more selective. In either case 'right to privacy' is toast.

[Teallaura]

Never thought of the points raised by warrend and Teal.

*goes back to political drawing board*

:hug:

[Chocobear]

Bob Enyart Debates Greg Koukl, Oct 26 on Truth Talk Live! (http://kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20071026)

the topic up for debate, is it moral for a Christian to vote for a pro-choice candidate. greg koukl argues for support for rudy guliani; bob enyart responds that under no circumstance is a christian to vote for a pro-choice candidate.

In my opinion, no. I don't see why a Christian would vote for someone who believes that it's perfectly fine for a woman to murder her unborn child; a child who, I should add, was created in the image of God. Let's hope Guliani won't become the Republican nominee.

[Raphael]

Speaking as someone who is very much a pro-lifer, and also used to a completely different political scene to the American one (I'm South African, who is now becoming a kiwi).

Sometimes you don't have a choice. When the two political parties both support abortion, then you still end up needing to vote for a party that is for it. A lesser of two evils situation.

The time I did vote for a party that was against it, they ending up joining an alliance with the largest political party which was against it.

(African politics are something different. In South Africa the ANC won around 80% of the vote, and the second biggest party got around 10%)

[Chocobear]

Voting for Guliani would definitely not be good for my conscience. Yes, he has done some great things. However, he supports two things that I (as a Christian) find morally objectionable: abortion and same-sex relationships. I'm afraid that all the good he has done in the world does not outweigh the fact that he advocates things that God has clearly condemned.

[Raphael]

Voting for Guliani would definitely not be good for my conscience. Yes, he has done some great things. However, he supports two things that I (as a Christian) find morally objectionable: abortion and same-sex relationships. I'm afraid that all the good he has done in the world does not outweigh the fact that he advocates things that God has clearly condemned.
An honest question: Can a serious candidate ever be vocally against abortion and same-sex relationships without being crucified by the press?

[Timothy Leary]

Sean Hannity... a secular humanist? Come on now.

[Teallaura]

An honest question: Can a serious candidate ever be vocally against abortion and same-sex relationships without being crucified by the press?No.

I'm a little confused from your other post so maybe I just misread you but the US isn't parliamentary like SA. Our two party system is a very different animal even more so as straight party voting has dwindled over the last two decades.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

An honest question: Can a serious candidate ever be vocally against abortion and same-sex relationships without being crucified by the press?No, but the press is most certainly not the peopple.

[Raphael]

No.

I'm a little confused from your other post so maybe I just misread you but the US isn't parliamentary like SA. Our two party system is a very different animal even more so as straight party voting has dwindled over the last two decades.South Africa has many political parties. (over a dozen)
In south Africa you don't vote for a Candidate, you vote for a political party, and the leader of the winning political party becomes the president. Right now the most powerful party in South Africa is the ANC. Nelson Mandela was the leader of the ANC, when he retired Thabo Mbeki become the leader of the ANC and at the next elections he became the President of the Country. He has now served his two terms as president, so the ANC has their leadership meeting next year where they will choose a new leader, and because of their majority number of votes, that person will be the countries next president.

Athough it's still up in the air a little, the most likely candidate has been tried for rape, he is facing corruption charges and managed to single handedly put AIDS awareness back 20 years. (When he was accused of raping a well known HIV+ AIDS activist, he responded that he was safe even though no protection was used because he had a shower afterwards...at the time he was head of the SA AIDS Awareness council, and head of the SA moral regeneration committee....and the country's deputy president)
No, but the press is most certainly not the peopple.Oh I agree, but they do influence public opinion.
I just hope that voter apathy won't affect those who will vote with their conscience and not with the press opinion.

EDIT: Apologies for de-railing slightly to discuss different political systems.

[themuzicman]

Right now is the time to have this conversation. I would agree at the primary level that no Christian should vote for Gulliani, because there are pro-life candidates from all over the spectrum to choose from.

However, if Gulliani were to win the nomination (:egad:), then the choice is a mildly pro-choice republican who has "promised" to put up the "right kind" (strict constructionist)of judges (which is political speak for pro-life judges) vs. a rabidly pro-abortion, radial liberal candidate (take your choice, Lieberman isn't running), then holding your nose and voting for him is the right thing to do.

Michael

[Sparko]

wow calling Greg Koukl a moral relativist is a hoot.

[Teallaura]

South Africa has many political parties. (over a dozen)
In south Africa you don't vote for a Candidate, you vote for a political party, and the leader of the winning political party becomes the president.
...

Um, I knew SA was parliamentary - I wasn't sure if you understood that the US is not from the way you were talking initially.

Never mind, I got it now.

[Raphael]

Um, I knew SA was parliamentary - I wasn't sure if you understood that the US is not from the way you were talking initially.

Never mind, I got it now.
My point was basically the same as Michael's (just confused by me putting it in South African terms).

While you can, vote for the person who has the morals you agree with (in what you guys call the Primaries). If your candidate doesn't make it, you will end up having to vote for what you consider to be the lesser of the two evils.

[Teallaura]

:thumb:

[Abykale]

It's important to keep in mind that we have had a pro-life president for almost 7 years and abortion has not been prohibited. The most we could realistically hope for from a president is that he would nominate "conservative" judges to the Supreme Court, who would be likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade given an appropriate case. Even this, of course, would not prevent abortions, but it would make it possible for state legislatures to pass laws in certain states that would. How many states would pass such laws? I don't know, but probably not all of them.

I think a strong pro-life candidate is great, if we can get one. That's part of the reason I tentatively think Romney is a better candidate than Giuliani. But looking to a pro-life president to end abortion is almost certainly going to end up in dashed hopes. The president's ability to end abortion is necessarily going to be slow and indirect. It is not the best way to end abortions. The best way continues to be taking advantage of the fact that abortions are not mandated. We can stop abortions by convincing people not to choose to have them. That is ultimately our best hope.

-Jeff

:thumb:

[yxboom]

:thumb:

:thumb:

unfamiliar with the "amen post" feature?

[dizzle]

:thumb:

[Teallaura]

unfamiliar with the "amen post" feature?
Yes. :yes:

[lee_merrill]

And while they’d not support a Republican caught embezzling, they support Republican candidates who brag of their support for killing children.
Yes, certain faults disqualify a person from public office, I would say that holding that children should be allowed to be killed in abortion would be one of them.

Did Guiliani even say he thought abortion was wrong? many such candidates have. This would make it even worse, to know that it is wrong (what can it be but murder then?) and then allow it.

And I must say that someone who can't tell that the location of a baby is not a critical factor in determining if this being is human has a level of discernment that would preclude me from trusting their judgment in other decisions. I mean, if they can't tell this, how can they make complex and involved foreign policy decisions, for instance?

If I may reword a statement here, he who is unfaithful in weighty matters is likely unfaithful also in lesser ones.