The single most important reason I am voting for McCain/Palin

>> Saturday, November 1, 2008

Hello all!  


I recently received an email from a friend asking for my take on John McCain, and I replied in some length.   Most of the email was of relatively little importance as we (I) mostly dialogued about things not necessarily related to core moral values…but I did want to pull the part of the email (modified and lengthened) in which I explain the most important reason I am supporting McCain.   I have posted it below and hope that agree or disagree, you find it edifying in some way.


In Christ,


Mark


P.S. I would welcome any comments, but would especially welcome disagreeing comments.  I didn’t touch on everything and didn’t explain everything I did touch on in full, so disagreeing comments might touch on something that would call for addition elaboration.   You can judge for yourself if that is a good thing. ;-) 



 Why I believe those supporting the pro-life agenda should vote for John McCain


Over the past four years the American people have been so pre-occupied with things like the war in Iraq and the economy that we (as a group) have tended to overlook one thing of vital importance; the advancement of the pro-life agenda.   Love George Bush or hate him, it seems hard to deny that he, when all is said and done, has been true to his pro-life position.  Not only has his appointment of Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court (both strongly pro-life) opened up the opportunity to challenge the validity of Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court level, but his many appointments to the lower judiciaries have made it possible to keep lower courts from legislating pro-choice laws on the people and likewise made it possible for conservative pro-lifers to defeat organizations like Planned Parenthood.   In short, the grass roots pro-life movement has not faced anywhere near the government sponsored impediments under George W. Bush they have faced for years.    As a result, the pro-life movement has been advanced and thousands upon thousands of babies have been saved from grizzly deaths (don’t forget the partial birth abortion issue).    10 years ago it would have been almost unthinkable to think that we would have such pro-life legislation on the ballot as Amendment 48 in Colorado.  Today it is not unthinkable.   Even the Republican Party platform has become more conservative on the abortion issue thanks to grass roots activists.  


All these advancements, though significant, are precarious at best and small at worst.   If a liberal government and court system imposed their pro-choice agenda once they can and will do it again.


In Barak Obama we have the most radically pro-choice Presidential Candidate ever.   If elected to office he will undo all the progress made by the pro-life movement in short order and will further cement the security of the pro-choice agenda.   In short, if the pro-life movement doesn’t want to see all they have accomplished go by the way-side...they must defeat Barak Obama.  Enter John McCain.   John McCain is not 100% pro-life.   His support for abortions in the case of rape and incest is troubling in light of the fact that those babies deserve to live just as much as others, and his support of embryonic stem cell research has rightfully raised red flags for many (I don’t happen to have as much of what I call a working concern with his support of embryonic stem cell research as some, but in the interest of time I’ll leave that issue untouched for now).


McCain is not the candidate the vast majority of the pro-life movement supported in the primaries, but unfortunately, he won anyway.    Now, pro-life advocates are faced with two sets of consequences if they vote for either Obama or McCain, assuming they will hold true to their word.


 If they vote for Obama the consequences will be:


-the legalization (again) of partial birth abortion


-continued tax payer subsidies for Planned Parenthood and their sister organizations


-the continuation of Roe v. Wade


-the appointment of young, pro-choice, liberal judges to the US Supreme Court and the various lower courts


-increased government support for sex education in public schools


-government intervention in the adoption field, including the disallowance of discrimination on religious lines for adoption agencies


-no requirements for parental notification and/or consent for minors in obtaining an abortion


-the death of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more babies  


That isn’t even an exhaustive list of the consequences of an Obama presidency.   The consequences of a McCain presidency (also not exhaustive) are:        


-the overturn of Roe v. Wade


-the freedom of the states to pass such legislation in regards to abortion as they choose


-no more tax payer support for Planned Parenthood and their sister organizations


-possible government support for embryonic stem cell research (I say possible because I don’t think it will happen if it hasn't already)


-exception clauses in anti-abortion laws providing for abortion in the case of incest and rape


A McCain presidency would not allow for the total advancement of the pro-life movement, but it would A) fight for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the first all important step in allowing straight up pro-life legislation, B) allow the opportunity for states to pass outright bans on abortion (it is not clear if states would be forced to include McCain’s exception clause), C) cut the funds abortion clinics use to prey on young girls.


In short, John McCain has an imperfect pro-life stance, but the pro-life movement would still have tremendous opportunity to advance their cause under a McCain presidency, and most importantly, they would not lose the ground they have already gained and their opposition would not be strengthened.


Many people would call support for McCain a compromise on the life issue because he isn’t as solid as others.   There is some amount of truth to that position, but I would remind all who believe such that this is not about us the living; this is about the unborn.  This (abortion) shouldn’t be considered the same way as taxes…I would be happy to pay more taxes if I was confident that it would somehow result in the betterment of unborn babies…if I need to compromise on things like taxes, immigration, etc. in the interest of preserving the gains of the pro-life movement then I would be more than happy to, and (at the risk of being repetitious) I believe John McCain represents the best chance we have on the ballot for preserving the gains of the pro-life movement.  As John Piper has said, the issue of life is always the foremost issue for our consideration.  Everything else is secondary.   If you would like to throw your vote to a perhaps more solidly pro-life candidate like Chuck Baldwin at the risk of Obama winning the presidency (or being emboldened by a significant popular vote victory) then I would encourage you to think of how you would explain to an aborted baby that the reason you didn’t support their best chance was that the chance was imperfect.  I am sure the millions of babies that will lose their lives by way of abortion under an Obama presidency and the subsequent battles to undo the damage will understand.  I am much more willing to pin my chances of lower taxes or immigration reform (to name a couple for instances) to a lost cause (the Baldwin presidential campaign) then I am the chances of unborn babies. 


The pro-life movement must support John McCain.  If they don’t, I believe they will be indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of additional babies under Obama’s radical agenda and for not saving the millions of babies that would be saved by McCain’s policies.


Is that too extreme a statement?  Perhaps…I certainly don’t want to appear judgmental towards those who don’t support McCain as I recognize that different people of equal sincerity will often arrive at different conclusions…but I do feel that the burden of responsibility is heavy and in the case of abortion we must be as clear as possible in articulating our views.  So, I have.  


This is the reality of where this election stands.  The only person on the ballot with a more conservative stated position on abortion is Chuck Baldwin.   Baldwin is polling what?  .5%?  1%?  2%?  You can decry all you want that Baldwin is not polling better then he is…the fact of the matter is that he isn’t and we owe it too the unborn to do the best we can to protect them, and "the best" in this case isn't voting for Chuck Baldwin.   I don’t personally feel comfortable playing political chicken with baby’s lives.    It's good to hold to principle; but when innocent lives are lost because of it by way of abortion then I would suggest the principle should be seriously re-examined. 


Until recently I was seriously contemplating withholding my vote on the grounds that there was no candidate I would feel good supporting.   I didn’t like the thought of walking away from the voter’s booth feeling anything less than glad support for whoever had received my vote.   Frankly, I just differ too much with McCain on things like McCain-Feingold, immigration, the environment (and the political ramifications), and other important issues to “feel good” about voting for him.    But this last Sunday, I shared my thoughts and feelings with one of my church elders, Mr. Hale.  This is the essence of the council he shared (I will try not to put words in his mouth).To conclude: I don’t think I need to say anything else.  But again, please don’t take this post as a harsh condemnation of everybody who doesn’t agree with me.  I don’t expect everyone to disagree with me…but I believe the things I believe for reasons, and if those reasons aren’t worth putting forward in no uncertain terms then they aren’t worth believing.




We all want to feel good about who we vote for.   This is not a wrong desire, especially if feeling good is determined by how closely we agree with the person in question.   But, if we operate on a feel good basis we operate on selfishness and naivety.    Neither of us wanted McCain to be our nominee and neither of us will "feel good" if we vote for him.   Due to our disagreements with him on policy issues, it would probably feel better if we voted third party (then we wouldn’t be responsible in any way for what happened under a McCain presidency if he won) or didn’t vote at all (for the same reasons).  But our decisions should not be based on what feels good…they should be based upon what is best for others…not our feelings.  The ability to separate our feelings from our decisions when they threaten to mar our decision making process is the mark of a good leader and a wise person. 


At the end of the day, when all is said and done, McCain represents the best hope for the unborn, and that is the overriding issue of importance.    If we seek to protect those who can’t protect themselves then we should vote for their best hope.


I agree with Mr. Hale 100%.   I am not making a negative judgment on people for supporting Baldwin; but understand that the reason I support McCain is not because I agree with him as much as I would like or that I will skip out of the voting booth whistling and with the best of feelings.  I support him because I believe he is the best hope for the unborn in seeing that their immediate needs and threats are dealt with.  The life issue is far too important to take out grudges on the GOP for not being the party you want them to be or that they claimed to be...and unfortunately I believe many people are.  


Again, I won’t “feel good” voting for McCain, but I will vote for him nonetheless with the conviction that it is the right thing to do for the sake of others who need protection more than I and the preservation and furtherance of the gains made by the pro-life movement is of monumentally greater importance than taxes, immigration, etc.


God bless!


Mark

16 comments:

The single most important reason I am voting for McCain/Palin November 1, 2008 at 8:53 PM  

[...] The single most important reason I am voting for McCain/Palin Even the Republican Party platform has become more conservative on the abortion issue thanks to grass roots activists. All these advancements, though significant, are precarious at best and small at worst. If a liberal government and … [...]

Mike Harmon November 1, 2008 at 9:00 PM  

Great post. I will read your posts frequently. Added you to the RSS reader.

Stephanie November 1, 2008 at 9:33 PM  

Mark,

Very well-said. I, too, don't feel very happy with the candidates we have, but really, what can we do about it now? The choices have been made, in a matter of speaking. "The people have spoken", which is a very scary thought. I ardently agree with what you and Mr. Hale said: our responsibility is to not always "stand up for what we believe in" (like a bunch of Veggietale characters), but to stand up for those who can't stand up for themselves. The ones without voices. Otherwise, really, are we really advancing any cause except the "survival of the fittest"? If we do that, we become nothing more than a semi-civilized copy of Hitler's Germany.

*tear* But I can't vote yet. :) That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion! *grin* Seriously though, good post, Mark.

Debbie McKee November 1, 2008 at 9:44 PM  

Well, Mark, I didn't get past the first sentence. Here are my comments:

1. since when does "pro-life" only involve the womb?

2. what about the million Iraqis our "pro-life" president is responsible for killing - "collateral damage"? What about soldiers, leaving widows and orphans or lives destroyed? In this unjust and unconstitutional "police action"?

3. McCain has stated his eagerness to continue the "war" for up to 100 years. How many more will die? Is that "pro-life"????

4. If something is unlawful for you or I to do, then we are responsible for the crime or sin if we hire someone else to do it. You can't delegate the authority to commit a crime. You can't hire someone else to do it. I'll try to find the wonderful article where I first encountered that way of putting it.

5. Our "pro-life" Congress and White House had 6 years of control and could have done something REAL about abortion if they had wanted to. They DIDN"T EVEN TRY. During that time period Dr. Ron Paul submitted various pieces of legislation that would have ended the practice and they went NOWHERE.

6. I've come to the conclusion that the "pro-life" agenda is a carrot they dangle in front of the Evangelicals/Religious Right to keep them in line. Keep them following the party.

7. That's all I can think of in a few moments off the top of my head.

Thank you for considering this perspective.

here is a link to an article for more info:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080822.html (not long and well worth a look, I didn't even touch many of the things that are listed there.)

Debbie McKee

veritassupraomnis2008 November 1, 2008 at 9:52 PM  

Mrs. McKee,

I am assuming you have read past the first sentence at this point (;-) ) and have a question.

Do you approve of the United States actions during WWII?

Debbie McKee November 1, 2008 at 10:00 PM  

I looked again and this jumped out....a good feeling about who I vote for? Yes, I feel very good about supporting a godly man who is wise and able, one who is truly pro-life to the core. It doesn't matter if he wins -although that would be ideal, what matters is that if I hold my nose and vote against my principles and conscience, then I LOSE. The blood he spills is on MY HANDS.

If Obama wins and kills more babies their blood is not on my hands, but his.

How can I do evil that "good may come"? It doesn't work that way.

It is our job to obey God, not to worry about how our vote may or may not affect the outcome of a lesser of two evils race.

A vote for either party is a wasted vote because nothing REAL will change. They will just continue to distract us with the superficial and continue to work their deeds behind the scenes.

Haven't you guys noticed that yet? They just keep the bickering and partisan insults going to distract us from the REAL ISSUES. They never even talk about what is really important -nothing of substance (if you want substance you need to listen to the third party debates). They are puppets and the man behind the curtain is really in charge and he doesn't care which puppet wins the election. He is in control. They have you fooled.

Debbie McKee

Debbie McKee November 1, 2008 at 10:10 PM  

which actions? our involvement at all? or particular actions?

The Berlin Airlift was a terrific action.

I haven't delved into it very thoroughly yet, but I've read some writings that cast a different light on the history of it. Suggesting that we aren't quite the good guys we made ourselves out to be.

The more I learn about our history and especially the events these past 50 years, the more I doubt the story we wrote.

A close look at the "War of Northern Aggression" will make one wonder about any military action we've been involved in.

And it sure is important to keep an open mind, and be very skeptical of what our government says. We need to be "good Bereans" when it comes to history as well as the Bible.

Debbie McKee

Natalie November 1, 2008 at 10:31 PM  

Mark,

This was indeed an important post, that presents some pretty convicting ideas. I am only 17, so I can not vote, but many times I have admitted “I would not vote for either of them(McCain, Obama)”. Because, like you said, I wouldn’t feel good about it. How can you “feel good” about voting for someone like McCain who will still protect abortion on certain terms? But most certainly, how can you not feel but terrible if you were to vote for Obama. I heard something to the equivalent of this “A vote loss for McCain is just another vote for Obama” and in return I said “But a vote for McCain is still a vote for McCain”. But your post has helped me to look at the situation in a little different light. Really, I felt unsure as to whether or not I would vote for McCain, not so much because of not feeling good, but because I wouldn’t want to feel as though I had blood on my hands- or the lingering wonder you know?. But these words that your Elder said, were very touching “But our decisions should not be based on what feels good…they should be based upon what is best for others…not our feelings. The ability to separate our feelings from our decisions when they threaten to mar our decision making process is the mark of a good leader and a wise person.”.

One has to think, even though my vote for McCain would consequence in lives being lost to abortion under certain terms, if I choose not to vote for
McCain, the progress made by the Pro-Life agenda would be virtually lost and millions upon millions more lives would be lost due to Obama making it into office(not to mention the other ways our nation would go into further moral degeneration).

Now I can see how voting for McCain would be standing up for the lives(oh, how we can say the word, yet not feel the weight of its very real meaning of future humans)that we KNOW will be wrongfully murdered. Maybe we can not save all, but wouldn’t it be better to at least save some, and not just some, but millions? To me that seems right, but I still feel a lingering uncertainty inside me, knowing that a vote for McCain is still, inevitably voting for death as well as life. I’m sure it’s a hard choice, but perhaps voters should think of this election in terms of it being a life or death sentence for millions of unborn babies. Will you vote for those babies to have life, and to have rights? Or will you not vote for the leading life candidate, which results in favor of the death sentence for those poor babies who will be deemed “not yet human”?

Something to think about.

Michael November 2, 2008 at 5:32 AM  

Hey Mark,

I really can't find evidence that McCAin supports overturning Roe v Wade? Where'd you come up with that?

In Christ,
Michael

Roberta November 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM  

Figures, another MALE who wants to be able to make all of the choices for a woman, including those with HER body.

Not only that, but someone who wants to put do something which has NEVER been done. Put CHURCH back into STATE.

I grew up ALWAYS being taught that our forefathers wanted that separation for a reason. I think it was probably for a VERY GOOD reason.

Mark, if you give abortion to the states, I hate to say it but it will be as screwed up as the adoption laws are. That is just not an option. Abortion NEEDS to be at the FEDERAL level where it is, so lets keep it there.

Nathan Malone November 3, 2008 at 7:58 AM  

Mark, Mark, Mark.... Reminds me of the "good 'ol days" when we used to debate a lot. :)

Where to begin... :)

As for your assertion that John McCain wants Roe v. Wade overturned, have you considered that he voted for both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, two pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices?

Anyway, I suppose that's a little beside the point, as it really doesn't get to the root of the issue...

If you get a few minutes, you might want to read http://paulhastings0.blogspot.com/2008/10/all-about-babies.html , which is a post by a friend from our Church about the same issue.

Anyway, I'll probably send my "rebuttal" via letter or email, instead of as a comment here. I just need a few hours to put it together. :)

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." - John Quincy Adams

Sarah November 3, 2008 at 2:26 PM  

Roberta,
I am a FEMALE. And I suport the right of the unborn (who have no voice). When a woman carries a child in her body, *her* body is no longer her own. She is now responible for herself and the life she carries insead her. She is responsible for another person. A PERSON.

Elizabeth November 3, 2008 at 3:00 PM  

Roberta,

From where do you get your core beliefs and convictions? From your church, your school, no particular place, just an amalgam of different theories and responses? Who cares. I get mine from my church, and I act them out in my life(I hope and try to, anyway). Just because my beliefs are derived from what I believe is the correct interpretation of the Bible does not make them illegitemate for the public arena. This is a representative democracy, and I am one of those who are represented. I have just as much right to advance my views as you do yours. Do you think that pro-abortion laws do not coerce me just as much as anti-abortion laws would coerce you?

Debbie McKee November 3, 2008 at 6:36 PM  

to clarify:
Republican Congressman Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, "To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception".

I don't have time to respond to anything else, but it's not because I couldn't, I just don't have the time. :-)

Like I said, it's just a carrot they dangle in front us.

Here is some food for thought:
The GOP's Pro-Life Rhetoric
The Republican Party claims to embrace a pro-life position, adherence to the US Constitution, and a policy of secure borders and adherence to the rule of law. However, the GOP's record on these issues does not support the party's rhetoric.
In his 2006 article, GOP Party of Death, Too, Chuck Baldwin, Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, addresses the disingenuousness of the GOP on the pro-life issue. Baldwin writes:
It was a Republican-dominated U.S. Supreme Court that legalized abortion on demand in 1973 with two monumental decisions: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
It was Republicans that authorized the killing of over 40 million innocent, unborn babies. Furthermore, since 1973, Republican-dominated Courts have repeatedly reaffirmed abortion-on-demand, including the current Court.
Republicans have enjoyed a sizeable majority on the Supreme Court for more than 30 years. The current makeup of the Court stands in favor of Republican appointments by a margin of 7-2.
Dear Christian friend, it is the Republican Party, more than the Democrat Party that, by its action, legalized, augmented, and legitimized abortion-on-demand. How can anyone say that the GOP is the "party of life" with a straight face? It's laughable. Democrats may talk pro-abortion (and do), but it is the Republican Party that actually gave America abortion.
Baldwin also noted, "There were 4,000 unborn babies aborted every day when George W. Bush became president back in 2001. After nearly six years of the Republican Party in complete control of the entire federal government, including both houses of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, there are still 4,000 unborn babies being aborted every day! Between 2000 and 2006 all the GOP has given pro-lifers is rhetoric!"
In his recent article, John McCain Pro Life? What a Joke, Baldwin calls attention to Republican Presidential candidate John McCain's hypocrisy on the pro-life issue:
Eight years of a "pro-life" President and six years of the "pro-life" GOP in charge of the entire federal government and not one unborn baby's life has been saved. Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, and abortion-on-demand is still legal in America.
Had John McCain and his fellow Republicans truly wanted to end legal abortion, they could have passed Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. Year after year, Dr. Paul introduced this bill, and year after year, it sat and collected dust in the document room on Capitol Hill.
What would Congressman Paul's bill do? It would do two things: 1) it would define life as beginning at conception and, thus, declare the personhood of every pre-born child. 2) Under Article. III. Section. 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In practical terms, Dr. Paul's bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand. So, where was John McCain? Why did he not support Ron Paul's bill and introduce a companion bill in the U.S. Senate?........message shortened it's goes on to address the other issues listed in the first paragraph.

Sarah November 3, 2008 at 11:18 PM  

Mrs.McKee,
You might be interested in this artical.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/campaigns/know-john-mccain-122.htm

Considering the FACT that Planned Parenthood hates him, I think that is one heck of an endorsment for John McCain.
Regareding what Chuck Baldwin has to say about McCain......
If Obama said something negative about McCain, I would take it with a grain of salt, and if McCain said somthing negative about Obama I would still take it with a grain of salt because, you know, they are IN A FIGHT FOR THE PRESIDANCY. Considering the fact that Chuck Baldwin is a canindate himself, I am still taking everything he say about the other canidates with a grain of salt. Because he is in the fight too, it is not like he has nothing at stake here. He is in it just like McCain and Obama.

I can't wait for this to all be over! :)

Carmen November 5, 2008 at 6:03 AM  

Though not dealing directly with your eloquent post, here are my thoughts about the results of yesterday's election.

When I looked out the window this morning, I found it to be gray, cloudy, and windy--reminded me of Mordor--evil creeping over the land. Perhaps God is grieving for our land--not for who was elected President, but for the continually declining road that has brought America to the place it is. I like the idea of a black man for President! Just not this man with what appears to be some radical beliefs and intentions.
I appreciate the silver linings some have found, and find myself almost rejoicing as well. I suspect things may change radically for our country. Yes, even in only four years, because current laws and standards may be ignored. But here's an additional HUGE silver lining. What this life is really all about is Jesus, and if we begin to lose our rights to worship and to use the airways to spread the gospel; if we lose the freedom to homeschool our children,if we can no longer protect the unborn, it will all serve as a blaring wake-up call to the church. We will stop being luke-warm Christians that God threatens to spew out of his mouth, and begin to be like believers in other countries whose faith is greatly strengthened because of the persecution under which they live. It is a fact that the gospel spreads more swiftly under opposition!

Blogger Template base thanks to Ourblogtemplates.com 2008; Design by: Kalistablogworks 2009

Back to TOP