Two men are running for the presidency of the nation of Imaginaria. In his campaign speech, the first candidate wants to communicate his progressive position so he takes ten innocent children and lines them up against the wall. He promises to help frustrated and tired parents by machine gunning down all ten of the children if elected. The second candidate who previously supported the machine gunni...
My response is that the above argument is a strawman and not relevant to our current election.
Let's pretend that those two men are the choices and that children will be gunned down. I believe we should vote for the man who will murder fewer children. Six lives are worth it. Not perfect, but worth it. We don't live in a perfect society, we live in a fallen society and sometimes (ok, often) have to make do with what is 'better' rather than what is optimal.
Also – the man that would only murder 4 children has softened from his original position of murdering all of the children. There is hope that he will continue to soften and realize that murdering children isn't evil and quit killing them. It will be easier to turn the second man than the first man.
Assuming that the illustration is really of Obama and Romney and abortion – I still say vote for Romney. The truth is that the president doesn't have that much influence over abortion at this time. His influence extends mostly to appointing Supreme Court justices. If Obama is re-elected he will appoint liberal judges. A liberal court will not hear an abortion case. They have nothing to gain. If Romney is elected, conservatives will have some influence over court appointments. A conservative court is more likely to hear an abortion case, but there is no guarantee that one will get that far and that they would consent to hear it. IF they do hear it and IF the court struck down Rove v. Wade, abortion would still be legal. It would simply become a state issue.
The president has some 'soap-box' status and could champion the Pro-Life Movement – but that power is limited. None of the other candidates were pro-life AND small government (except Bachmann – I'll have to check on her)
I'm not sure why Mitt supported abortion or why he changed his mind. I suspect political expediency. And political expediency points to my preferred method of doing away with abortion. Change hearts and minds. I know that's so clich̩ at this point, but it's still true. We need to teach and model good sexual behavior Рincluding responsibility. We need to work in adoption centers and promote adoption centers. We need to fight legislation that takes churches out of adoption centers. We also need to start foundations that provide prenatal and general health care Рsort of competition to Planned Parenthood. We need to change society and that will cause politicians to change their actions Рpolitical expediency.
ng of most of the children, lines up ten children himself. But he explains that if he is elected he will machine gun down no more than four of the ten children lined up against the wall. And to demonstrate his "commitment to life", he will only machine gun to death the children who are in his mind "justifiably" unwanted by their parents.
Question: Is it wise, honorable and biblical for Christian voters to put their stamp of approval and vote for the second candidate because he will machine gun and brutally murder less children than the first? Is it an incremental step in the right direction?
Question: Is it wise, honorable and biblical for Christian voters to put their stamp of approval and vote for the second candidate because he will machine gun and brutally murder less children than the first? Is it an incremental step in the right direction?
This is my response:
Let's pretend that those two men are the choices and that children will be gunned down. I believe we should vote for the man who will murder fewer children. Six lives are worth it. Not perfect, but worth it. We don't live in a perfect society, we live in a fallen society and sometimes (ok, often) have to make do with what is 'better' rather than what is optimal.
Also – the man that would only murder 4 children has softened from his original position of murdering all of the children. There is hope that he will continue to soften and realize that murdering children isn't evil and quit killing them. It will be easier to turn the second man than the first man.
Assuming that the illustration is really of Obama and Romney and abortion – I still say vote for Romney. The truth is that the president doesn't have that much influence over abortion at this time. His influence extends mostly to appointing Supreme Court justices. If Obama is re-elected he will appoint liberal judges. A liberal court will not hear an abortion case. They have nothing to gain. If Romney is elected, conservatives will have some influence over court appointments. A conservative court is more likely to hear an abortion case, but there is no guarantee that one will get that far and that they would consent to hear it. IF they do hear it and IF the court struck down Rove v. Wade, abortion would still be legal. It would simply become a state issue.
The president has some 'soap-box' status and could champion the Pro-Life Movement – but that power is limited. None of the other candidates were pro-life AND small government (except Bachmann – I'll have to check on her)
I'm not sure why Mitt supported abortion or why he changed his mind. I suspect political expediency. And political expediency points to my preferred method of doing away with abortion. Change hearts and minds. I know that's so clich̩ at this point, but it's still true. We need to teach and model good sexual behavior Рincluding responsibility. We need to work in adoption centers and promote adoption centers. We need to fight legislation that takes churches out of adoption centers. We also need to start foundations that provide prenatal and general health care Рsort of competition to Planned Parenthood. We need to change society and that will cause politicians to change their actions Рpolitical expediency.
No comments:
Post a Comment