New poll/Old poll
The new poll question is up:
Is there ever a legitimate reason for a pro-lifer to vote for a pro-abort?
HT to moderator Jasper for the suggestion.
Re: last week’s poll question, wow, I don’t think we’ve ever had such a lopsided response…
Enlarge the map below to find your own personal brightly colored flag, although this will be difficult unless you voted in the minority. Note the majority reponses came from all over the country, not just 1 or 2 hot spots where this issue is ripe:
Remember to comment here on either poll question, not on the Vizu website.
Mar.08, 2008 6:20 am |
Polls |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
YES!
If the pro-abort is less of a pro-abort than the other contender.
For example, if the election is between candidate A (Let’s call her Hitlery) and Candidate B (Let’s call him Yomama), and Hitlery wanted to kill 8 babies if elected, but Yomama wanted to kill 10, a vote for Hitlery in the absence of other choices wouldn’t be a vote to kill 8 babies, but a vote to save 2, since either way, some baby-killer is going to be elected.
By the way, I equate voting for a pro-abort to save babies to being adrift in the ocean and drinking ones’ own pee to survive: It’s a sick act of desperation.
My answer is “no”.
I do have a follow up question though…
Not voting is for people that care more about making a point than making a difference!
Those that support abortion are going to vote for the more pro-abortion candidate, shouldn’t we vote for the lesser one- and save those 2 babies.
Jacqueline,
Please answer my question on “Terrorism”.
Thanks.
Mike
Speaking of voting, WOOOO!!! Go Bill Foster!!! The 14th district of Illinois turns blue! At least until November, but I can’t imagine that Obie will pick up any more votes by then. Who wants a four time loser?
Mike:
My answer is an unqualified Yes. I didn’t answer because I thought (and currently think) that it’s a stupid question. What idiot would abstain from voting and get a elected official that’s 100% pro-terrorism? The same idiot that would abstain from voting and get a candidate that’s 100% pro-abortion.
By the way, I find the murder of 4000 babies a day by their own mothers to be a worse form of terrorism than car bombings and plan hijackings, so an attempt to akin the abortion issue to terrorism fails, because I view abortion as worse. Abortion is a mother (the one charged with protecting and loving the child) killing her own baby. At least suicide bombers kill strangers rather than their own flesh and blood.
Jacque, right on.
Jacque, I haven’t been able to find you to thank you. Remember when you got on my case about my choice in “friends”? Well, I began to ask myself: Why DO I hang around with pro aborts?? I am happy to tell you 2 things. I have since become a member of my local RTL organization. I have also dumped all of my friends who continue to condone abortion:]..Once I became pretty upfront and honest about my RTL stance, I was shocked to hear that 2 women opened up to me. One woman confided, “I feel like I’m going to burn in hell for having my abortion.” Another woman broke down crying “I can’t believe I did it.” “It left me feeling so empty.” Now I’d like to try to help them with healing. Jacque, you planted the seed that day, but I took your advice. I just had to thank you. As far as the women who still condone abortion, I’ll have to leave them to prayer. Jacque, thank you.
Hi Heather,
You can tell them that if they are remorseful and accept Christ as their Saviot, theirs sins (abortion) are completely forgiven.
God-bless
Jackie,
I agree with you abortion is worse than terrorism. I think sometimes I rather use “terrorism” or “slavery” in my questions instead of abortion because so many of us now days are so grounded in our positions on abortion. I think changing the issue helps us to think more deeply about the question.
You stated you would vote for Candidate B (40% Pro-Terrorism, 60% Anti-Terrorism).
——
Here’s my follow up question…
1. Would Jesus vote for the “lessor of two evils” candidate?
2. Would Jesus vote for Candidate B (40% Pro-Terrorism, 60% Anti-Terrorism)?
or Would there be other options?
Mike
And, another racist sighting – I’m surprised, Jacqueline.
And, another racist sighting – I’m surprised, Jacqueline.
I think you’re calling me a racist, but I can’t begin to imagine why. Could you explain?
Heather-
I am so proud that your forthrightness is giving women the opportunity to heal! That’s awesome.
If you need post-abortion ministries to lead these ladies to, I always use http://www.pregnancycenters.org/. You put in the zip code and it gives a list of free counselors in the area.
You are amazing, Heather! What encouraging news!
Here’s my follow up question…
1. Would Jesus vote for the “lessor of two evils” candidate?
Yes- Jesus is not an idiot, and a vote to limit evil is a good vote. It’s not a vote for evil, but for good.
Jesus loves us each so much that he wouldn’t stand back and let us all be killed when he could save at least some.
2. Would Jesus vote for Candidate B (40% Pro-Terrorism, 60% Anti-Terrorism)?
Yes, he would. Because I don’t think he’d sit back and smugly refuse to vote knowing that it could mean the lives of innocent people. He’d save all that he can- much like He did on the cross.
or Would there be other options?
This whole scenario only works if there are not other options! Of course one wouldn’t vote for a candidate that supports terrorism at all if given another choice- but in the real world, we have to choose.
Do you expect us to take up arms are start a revolution if we have two evil candidates (chosen by the populace)? Who’d fight with you besides the fringe that is so minimal or apathetic that they didn’t get their candidate in in the first place. Let’s be real.
Exactly what do you suggest? It’s better not to vote and allow the pro-aborts to get the biggest baby-killer elected? One might feel good about themselves for not compromising until they realize that they didn’t compromise at the expense of human babies.
I must save the babies I can, and if that means voting for the lesser of two evils, I absolutely will.
Jacqueline,
I am with you on your end objective. Although I think you are highly mistaken and nieve to think Jesus would vote for evil and terrorism.
Mike
Although I think you are highly mistaken and nieve to think Jesus would vote for evil and terrorism.
Jesus wouldn’t vote for evil and terrorism- He’d vote to LIMIT evil and terrorism where you would not vote and allow evil and terrorism to continue unchecked. I think that’s naive and dangerous.
While we might be in agreement on the end objective, one way acheives that objective and the other does not.
Trust me, I am open to other options. What do you suggest? Not voting and allowing the most evil person to assume power is NOT an option, though.
Mike- let’s look at reality in the scenario you offer:
Babies will be killed no matter what. Voting for one candidate will save some babies, while voting for the other candidate will assure they’d all be murdered.
You’ve not vote and let those babies you could save be dismembered?
Would you sit up on your high horse if those babies were your own children? No- you’d do anything you could to save them.
So would Jesus.
Let’s be intelligent rather than idealistic. We don’t have the latitude to sacrifice babies to promote our ideals.
When choosing between 2 very evil people, it is extremely arrogant to think you can measure the depth of their evil and somehow come to a conclusion which has the darker heart.
There is never an excuse for voting for evil. Our system allows for write-in votes. You always have another choice.
Let’s change the situation and say that candidate “a” says he kill 2 of your kids and candidate “b” says he’ll only kill on of your kids. Would you line up to endorse candidate “b”?
No! It would be evil to endorse such a deal.
There will be a time when we have to answer for the evil that we’ve supported, and it is not relevant to God that we had a strategic goal in mind when we endorsed evil.
Jacqueline,
No I still disagree with you. Jesus would not vote for Candidate B because Candidate B is 40% Pro-Terrorism. Jesus would never vote for terrorism. Jesus would never vote the “lessor of two evils” because the voting for the “lessor of two evils” is still a vote for EVIL.
People having been voting for the “lessor of two evils” candidate for many years now but where has it gotten us…
1) Abortion on demand
2) Partial Birth Abortion
3) Killing Human Embryos
4) We now have a candidate who is Pro-Infanticide
5) Selected Euthanasia (ie Terri Schaivo)
6) Experimental Cloning
7) Increased Chemical Abortions (more and more Hormonal Contraception on the market)
Therefore voting the “lessor of two evils” is really a vote for continuing down the slippery slope for more and more evil to happen.
Compromising your vote will get you nowhere. History backs up this claim.
Voting for 100% Pro-Life Candidates is the only way to stop abortion!
Mike
I hope my life is never on the line up against your ideologies, because clearly you’d sooner see me die that sacrifice one inch of your self-righteousness to save my life.
Voting for 100% Pro-Life Candidates is the only way to stop abortion!
Then give me 100% pro-life candidate! It’s not that anyone wants to vote for the lesser of two evils, it’s that we’ve failed to produce good candidates.
You can talk about write-in candidates, but everyone writing in someone will only assure that the most evil candidate gets elected. You might sleep like a baby at night- but babies will be dismembered as the price for your idealism.
No I still disagree with you. Jesus would not vote for Candidate B because Candidate B is 40% Pro-Terrorism.
So Jesus would let the 100% pro-terrorism candidate win knowing that people would die, and a vote for the lesser candidate could have stopped some of the bloodshed?
Jesus would never vote for terrorism.
We agree. Jesus would vote to stop or limit terrorism rather than letting it go unfettered, like you would.
Jesus would never vote the “lessor of two evils” because the voting for the “lessor of two evils” is still a vote for EVIL.
No, it’s a vote to LIMIT evil. Are you incapable of thinking critically?
I am very glad that I write the policies. I have no right to sacrifice any lives, but if I can only save so many children and must go back for the rest, I would. You would let everyone die simply because they couldn’t be saved in one. Fat lot of good it does for those babies.
I guarentee you ideologues that if YOUR lives were on the line and you could vote to increase your chances to live, you would.
I’ve answered your questions; answer mine.
If one candidate was going to kill all first-born sons and another was going to kill all first-born and second-born sons, and you were a second-born son, who’d you vote for?
Mind you: you’re going to end up with one of these candidates winning.
Would you not vote and risk your life out of this counter-productive principle you hold, or would you vote to save second-born sons?
It’s different win it’s your own life on the line, huh?
It’s different win it’s your own life on the line, huh?
I think Jesus already gave us the answer when he died for our sins.
No, it’s a vote to LIMIT evil. Are you incapable of thinking critically?
I already gave you 7 examples above about how voting for evil leads to a slippery slope of creating more and more evil.
You can mark my words — Next America will be Euthanizing the Baby Boomers because there are not enough $$ or medical personal to take care of them. I don’t want this to happen. That’s why we have to find candidates who are 100% Pro-Life.
Mind you: you’re going to end up with one of these candidates winning.
There almost always is an alternative candidate. I don’t see one yet this year but we have another 9 months. Dr. Dobson from Focus on the Family I believe has promised another candidate will run for President.
What’s important here is what is your definition of winning? Winning should not always mean a candidate has to win. If a large voting block of people are voting for a 3rd Party candidate all because of a certain issue — then this can certainly change policy also.
For instance — In the 1970’s McDonald’s was not doing to well with it’s sales of hambergers in February through April. It seems Catholic’s were avoiding buying meat on Friday’s due to lent. McDonald’s then added the fish fillet to its menu and the sales during the lenten season have been going through the roof for 40 years.
So don’t underestimate the vote for a third party candidate who is 100% Pro-Life.
For many years I felt the same way you did on voting for the lessor of two evils but the more and more I thought about it and asked questions about it to Judie Brown at the American Life League, the more the Truth was revealed.
Mike
All fine plus nine equal to not fine.
Mike,
Your example is a red herring. You have to evaluate the candidate’s entire platform, determine which candidate is more evil and vote for her opponent.
The majority of Americans have said that they wouldn’t vote for a candidate if he/she was openly atheist.
So my question is would any of you vote for a pro life atheist over a pro choice liberal christian?
JKeller, I would vote for a pro-life conservative (fill in the blank) before I voted for a pro-choice liberal (fill in the blank). Put any race, gender, religion, etc in that blank and that is how I would vote.
Unfortunately, there are few pro-life conservative atheists. If one ran for office against a pro-choice liberal Christian, however, I would definitely vote for him or her.
But… I am the sort who thinks that liberal Christians are the same as atheists anyway, so it’s not a hard choice for me to make. Still, I vote based on the issues, not other nonsense.
And, sorry to pile on you Mike, but I don’t think your position is very logical. Consider that the election is going to be between Obama and McCain. Obama is extremely pro-abortion. McCain is not 100% pro-life, but does that mean we should throw our votes away on some unknown 100% pro-life candidate, essentially helping Obama win the election? In my opinion that would be a foolish thing to do.
And when it comes to McDonald’s, we’re talking about McDonald’s selling fish sandwiches to make money. McDonald’s would sell Filet-O-Fish even if they hated Catholics, because they sell a lot of them. They don’t sell them because they agree with Catholic teaching. There is just no comparison to be made between the sales of the Filet-O-Fish and politics.
John, you’ve just made me hungry for a Filet-O-Fish!
I love commenting different articles and information. To be honest with you, it’s my hobby. And, by the way commenting different stuff on this web site is one of my favorite things to do in free time. I like to express my mind, and when I realize that I’m wrong, I correct my mistakes. Thank you for a possibility to express myself! I really enjoy it!
I’ve been browsing for a very long time, trying to find something very special in Internet. It’s hard to imagine, how much time I spent searching for sensations. I have tried to find something interesting and not very serious, just to enjoy reading it. I can’t believe that I’m finally here and that I found everything I was looking for. Interesting information, interesting people. That’s exactly what I needed.