Subscribe to IFRL

Contact the Media

GoodSearch cause banner


Option Line - 24 hour Pregnancy Hotline

Illinois Federation

For Right to Life

Daily News

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

I'm Not Voting for a Man, I'm Voting for Generations of Children and Their Right to Live

 

'While a single issue canít qualify a candidate, it can disqualify him.'

 

NOTE: This commentary first appeared on Randy Alcorn's blog on Oct. 22, 2008.

 

As a Christian, should we vote for who we think should lead our country solely based on their stance on abortion?

 

The Bible is emphatically clear on when human life begins. On the same issue, science is equally clear.

 

Every Christian should take these teachings seriously. Is the unborn an innocent human being? If you claim to be pro-life, then your answer is yes. Is abortion the shedding of innocent blood, the taking of human life created in the image of God? If you say you are pro-life, your answer must be yes.

 

So, is the candidateís stand on the issue of shedding innocent blood important enough to disqualify him as a candidate? Yes. While a single issue canít qualify a candidate, it can disqualify him. In my opinion, this issue clearly disqualifies Barack Obama.

 

I donít think someone is a good candidate just because he is pro-life. But he cannot be a good candidate unless he is pro-life. Personally, if he is committed to legalized child-killing, as a matter of conscience I must vote against him.

 

Now, when someone says, "But still, abortion isn't the only issue," I agree. I care very much about the poor and racial equality. That's why if John McCain was committed to legalizing the killing of the poor and the killing of ethnic minorities, I would not vote for him either.

 

But suppose you have two candidates, one who has promised to defend and further the legalized killing of one group of people (any group: women, minorities, disabled, unborn, poor). You disagree with the other candidate in areas that in their own right might be important, but do not involve the merciless slaughter of millions of people. Furthermore, the second candidate ó whom you consider boring and disagreeable ó believes that same group of people has the right to live, and he says he will defend their rights, and appoint judges who will defend it. Now, which candidate should you vote for?

 

If neither candidate were committed to the legalized killing of people, any people, then I would say, by all means weigh and measure those other important issues and make your choice. But can you seriously argue that these other issues trump the killing of millions of innocent children, not just now, but in the decades to come under a pro-abortion Supreme Court that could have been a pro-life Supreme Court?

 

Don't you believe that though there were other issues in Nazi Germany besides the killing of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled, all those other issues were trumped by that one? If Lincoln's platform involved ending slavery yet you agreed with Douglas (who wanted slavery to remain legal) in lots of other areas, would you feel right voting for Douglas, knowing you were voting for slavery?

 

So I say OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES. I don't minimize them. All I can say is the differences between the candidates on those issues don't stack up, even cumulatively, to the legalized killing of human beings. It's a matter of relative importance. A man who is a good husband in most respects, but who beats his wife, is not a good husband. That issue outweighs all the others.

 

I am troubled by John McCain's treatment of his first wife, (and) this is one of several things I don't like about John McCain. But his past failure in marriage is not comparable to Obama taking a present stand for the legalized killing of children.

 

I am not excited about John McCain in every area. But when I compare him to Barack Obama in the overriding issue of our day, the right of preborn children to live, there is a stark and radical difference. In America right now, the rights of Jews to live and slaves to be free are not on the table. The right of unborn children to live is on the table. The killing of the unborn is the holocaust of our day. Where do you want to have stood on this issue? Where do you want the man you vote for to have stood on it? If your grandchildren ask you one day whether you voted for or against the right of children to live, what will you say?

 

Two candidates, two records no abortion

 

Would John McCain be a great president? I don't know. Maybe he wouldn't even be a good president. There are so many claims by both candidates that their words seem like wind to me. I don't feel like I know a lot. But I do know for certain that one candidate defends the right of the unborn to live, and the other is utterly committed to be sure that it remains legal to kill them. And on THAT issue I know what God says is right and wrong.

 

Yes, I realize Obama is cool. I really wanted to vote for him, so I could be cool too. John McCain is not so cool. The question isn't whether I'd rather have dinner or play golf with Obama or McCain. (I'd choose Obama.) I am voting for McCain because it's my only way in this election to vote for the right of unborn children to live rather than die.

 

Now, if you think that's an overstatement, that the difference between the candidates isn't that great, or they will not influence the future of abortion in this country, I challenge you to look at Obama's dogged commitment to the legalized killing of unborn children, backed up by his 100 percent pro-abortion voting record. And look at McCain's repeatedly stated commitment, also demonstrated by his voting record, to oppose the legalized killing of children. If you think your presidential vote is not for or against unborn children, you don't understand the significance of the Freedom of Choice Act or the significance of the balance of power of the Supreme Court with the Obama judges who are certain to be pro-legal-abortion and the McCain judges who are virtually certain to be anti-legal-abortion.

 

So, feel free to go against the clear evidence about who the unborn really are. Then just admit that you are not pro-life. Sure, it's irrational, but at least it's a good explanation of why you would support the strongest pro-legal-abortion candidate for the presidency in the history of our nation.

 

But PLEASE don't just mindlessly say "I'm pro-life" then contradict that statement by saying you are supporting a candidate for president who is utterly committed to not only maintain legalized abortion through policy and appointment of judges, but who also HAS PROMISED to try to reverse pro-life state legislation passed in the last 30 years.

 

Randy Alcorn is the founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries (EPM), a nonprofit organization dedicated to teaching biblical truth and drawing attention to the needy and how to help them. He is the author of more than 30 books.

 

Contact: Randy Alcorn

Source: CitizenLink

Source URL: www.citizenlink.org

Publish Date: October 27, 2008

Link to this article:

http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/081028_1.htm

 

 

The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection for the disabled and the elderly.†† Click here to learn more about the IFRL.