BATTLE ROYALE XIII: Round 4a
Whom Do You Fear?
A candidate says "I hate racism, and I am anti-slavery." He explains that he believes "slavery should be legal" only in the cases of X, Y and Z, which would account for only 1% of blacks in America. "I am not pro-slavery. I'm simply not quite as anti-slavery as some people. Don't say I support it. After all, I have a long, consistent record of being against it! I simply hold that there are certain… exceptions. If a black man doesn't finish high school, is unemployed and if his father is a criminal, then in this case,
slavery should be legal. That doesn't mean I am pro-slavery. I'm just not as anti-slavery as you are."
The candidate's favorite Supreme Court judge proclaims that while he would overturn a law making slavery legal nationwide, he would likewise overturn a law that banned slavery nationally, because "they're both wrong." The judge is praised as firmly anti-slavery.
The candidate might even get a 100% anti-slavery rating from the National Right to Freedom Committee. Of course, the NRFC itself also advocates keeping it legal to enslave blacks who are unemployed, uneducated sons of criminals. Just a couple years ago, it opposed a measure in North Dakota that would make slavery 100% illegal without exceptions. "We want to establish reasonable anti-slavery laws in America that everyone can feel good about. For example, a waiting period of 24 hours before enslaving a black man, just to make sure it's what you really want to do. Married people must sign a form saying they have informed their spouse about the purchase of a slave. Also, teenagers from 13 to 17 must have parental consent in order to enslave a black man. Ultimately, we just want to keep slavery alive as an issue."
[This post will be large, and we sincerely beg the reader's patience, as we contend every word is relevant and necessary. Unfortunately, our opponents spent almost all of their last post going far off topic (as we'll show) and we're obligated to address the issues and questions they gave.]
A Bad Taste in the Mouth
Which candidate would Jesus vomit out of his mouth? The ice-hearted Obama who opposed even the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act? Or the lukewarm "Luke Skywalker" of Congress who is opposed to some abortions while firmly advocating keeping other kinds of abortions legal?
Revelation 3:15-16
15 "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of My mouth.
Before we even made our "Case Against McCain" in Round 3, our opponents admitted in Round 2 that McCain wants to keep some abortion legal. They did this by acknowledging that he believes there should be exceptions, particularly for rape, incest and life of the mother. If an unborn baby's father raped his/her mother, then that baby has no right to life at all, according to McCain, and our opponents admitted this. Therefore, we're puzzled by their continued objections to our accusation that McCain wants to keep abortion legal – after all, they said it before we even made our case.
A candidate advocates enslaving only 1% of blacks in America, and says "I am not a racist, and I am not pro-slavery." Of course this is utterly ridiculous. This candidate isn't anti-slavery. He is pro-slavery.
He's just not as pro-slavery as some people. Such a candidate is advocating evil, and will use his office to advance that evil philosophy.
Our opponents already agreed at the end of Round 2 that it would be immoral to vote for such a candidate.
We established by over half a dozen lines of evidence that John McCain is pro-choice, but simply
not as pro-choice as some people. We proved that he has knowingly funded abortions with taxpayer money. We proved that he believes "abortions should be legal."
By Team NW's own standard, it is immoral to vote for John McCain.
In their Round 3 post, Team NW utterly ignored almost every line of evidence we gave to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that John McCain, by his own admission, believes that "abortions should be legal." Even the most damning evidence…
John McCain at Project VoteSmart:
d) Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
e) Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.
John McCain has knowingly funded stem cell research, that is medical experiments on living human beings. He has funded medical and chemical abortion. He has stated that those abortions should be legal. We proved that he has reaffirmed the above VoteSmart views
even in the last few weeks. (Do our opponents believe he has changed his position in the last 6 weeks?) And yet, Team NW is still in denial that McCain believes "abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape," claiming that McCain is "inconsistent" on this issue. They even try to make an apologetic for his vote for H.R. 3010, saying that he voted for this bill
despite the fact that it funded abortions – that he wasn't really agreeing with the part that said it would fund abortions for rape, incest and life of the mother. How is this, when he consistently and openly supported legalized abortion for those things both before and after his vote on that bill?
In 2000 and 2004, he said abortion should be legal for rape and incest. In 2005, he funded abortions for rape and incest. In September, 2008, he reaffirmed that he believes "abortions should be legal" for rape and incest. This is "inconsistent?"
GGQ16: Does John McCain advocate that some "abortions should be legal?" (Note, this is a yes or no question, but after a yes-or-no, feel free to elaborate as always.)
Let's also reword that question and ask it again, just to be as clear as we can.
GGQ17: Does John McCain advocate that women have a right to "choose" to have an abortion if they were raped or the child resulted from incest?
Since there is only one correct answer to the last two questions – "Yes" – we again ask:
GGQ18: Do you believe McCain is the kind of man who will refuse to stand up for his principles in this area, who will go against his own views and work to criminalize something he believes should be legal? Or, conversely, do you believe McCain will likely use the authority of his presidential office to keep some abortion legal, including to sign bills into law that fund abortion for such things as rape and incest?
Our opponents ignore the Constitution itself, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments, which state that every person has a right to life, so that they may not be deprived of life without due process. Instead, they agreed with Stephen Douglas that any state has the right to deprive human beings of their God-given, inalienable rights if that state wishes. On this basis, we point out that Team NW does not even recognize or believe in the personhood of the unborn, for if they did recognize it, they would recognize that the Constitution does cover this issue, and therefore there is no "states rights" issue at work here,
at all, any more than there is for slavery. After all, no state has the right to legalize slavery, and it is disallowed under the U.S. Constitution.
Even worse, our opponents exhibit relative morality in defense of their position. They seem to explain that McCain is
relatively pro-life. Compared to what or to whom? Or to Whom? As usual, they resort to mere earthbound humans as the standard for right and wrong, not God. They tell us that all sins are equal – a heinous doctrine wholly in contradiction to God's word and damaging to the worldview of any Christian. They make it clear that they would give a
Yea vote for the kinds of laws that enslave
some blacks, as long as the law had a greater positive effect – a relatively good law since it does more good than evil. We take this from the fact that they approve of McCain's vote for H.R. 3010 which explicitly funded abortions, as they explained that it was moral for McCain to vote into law a piece of legislation that funds infanticide. If it was moral for McCain to do so, we can only surmise that our opponents would be willing to do the same, themselves, if they were in McCain's shoes.
Moral relativism is truly at the heart of Team NW's arguments, as they would give their approval to evil deeds and to the evil men who do them, all in the name of doing the moral thing.
Let's take a moment to address more directly the other team's last post. It seems our opponents find themselves in a nasty predicament, having found themselves trapped by their own words. They believe they can worm out of this by diverting everyone's attention to doctrinal discussions on the nature of sin and voting.
Voting is the decision to choose, from a group of available candidates, the one who will serve in a specific office. As one's choices are limited to an available pool of candidates, voting may not be seen as an expression of absolute allegiance to or agreement with everything believed by a given candidate. It is simply an expression that, for a given set of reasons, one has decided to provide support to a given candidate.
It is not sufficient therefore to prove that a given candidate has a stance that is immoral, as voting for a candidate is not an expression of agreement with or allegiance to every portion of what is believed by a given candidate.
NWQ6: Do you agree with the the definition of voting offered? If not, please give one of your own.
QQA-NWQ6: We basically agree, with two exceptions. First of all, some immoral stances are far worse than others and therefore function as litmus test issues. If a candidate is right about every other issue except that he advocates slavery, then he is unfit for office, no matter how wicked his opponent is. And indeed, our opponents have already agreed on this. So, both teams agree there are boundaries on the issue of the immorality of a candidate and whether we should vote for him based on that. Even though they said this earlier, themselves, they seem to have forgotten that here, so it requires a reminder.
Second, our opponents seem to believe that our "pool of candidates" is somehow limited to just two. This is, indeed, quite fallacious, since a voter has many candidates to choose from. In fact, with the option to write in a candidate on the ballot and the fact that virtually every natural-born American citizen over the age of 35 is eligible for the office, this means the "pool of candidates" numbers literally in the millions. But, we will further address this later in the post.
Of course, debating the doctrine of voting is a complete waste of time since both teams agree on everything necessary on these topics. This was established chiefly with three little questions:
Question: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill this innocent child?
Answer: YES. But this is simply more emotionally laden rhetoric, as there is no Presidential candidate involved in this election who has expressed a desire to kill children.
Question: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to fund the killing of this innocent child?
Answer: YES. Have you read John McCain's stance upon the issue of abortion? He agrees with us. [He agrees with Team NW that some "abortions should be legal?"]
Question: Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to use his power as President to keep it legal to kill this innocent child?
Answer: YES. Again, this is not John McCain's position. He has pledged to do his part to end abortion - he will nominate constructionist judges who, by definition, would never overturn a personhood amendment, national or otherwise.
On all three questions, they said yes. They listed no exceptions to this rule. All they could do was say "yes
but…" and clarify that this isn't true of John McCain. And so, what did we do?
We proved that John McCain has already funded abortions
specifically in line with his views that such "abortions should be legal." And we showed that unless he is a spineless, lying coward who will contradict his own moral stances in office, he will use his office to help
keep abortions legal. This would occur not only by nominating Supreme Court justices that don't believe in the unborn's right to life (just like his heroes Scalia and Alito), but also by signing pro-abortion bills that would fund even more abortions for rape and incest. All of the theological discussion in the world isn't going to change the fact that Team NW agreed in three "Yes" answers that it would be immoral to vote for a candidate who fits these criteria. Unfortunately, they ignored almost every piece of evidence we provided that shows clearly that McCain funded abortion and that he advocates that "abortions should be legal." We don't blame them, since that evidence was irrefutable, and we take their silence to mean they concede those points.
It is immoral to vote for a candidate willing to fund the killing of some innocent children. Both teams agree on that. Was McCain
unwilling to fund the killing of innocent children? No, he was completely willing, and it precisely fit with his consistently declared position on abortion, namely that "abortions should be legal" for rape and incest. He didn't vote "yea" in spite of that provision; he completely agreed with that provision. It was what he wanted. He wants it to be legal, and he voted for a bill that defended, supported and funded exactly those kinds of abortions.
It is immoral to vote for a candidate willing to use his power as president to keep it legal to kill children who were conceived in rape and incest. Both teams agree on that, too. Looking at a man who believes "abortions should be legal" in these cases, are we to believe McCain would contradict his own stance on this moral issue, contradict himself and criminalize something he believes should be legal? Of course not. Team NW did a fine job of quoting many McCain friends about how we can trust McCain's word, trust him to stand on what he believes with courage and conviction. Therefore, we should fully expect that McCain will remain true to his principles and use his office to fund abortion and to help keep abortion legal.
Team NW graciously agreed to narrow the scope of the debate to these issues by answering yes to those questions, and we thank them for that, because it simplified everything. It means the only question from here on out that is necessary to settle this debate is whether those accusations fit John McCain. No other question or issue is necessary. Both teams agree that it is immoral to vote for a candidate who fits those criteria. If McCain doesn't fit, then we must acquit. If McCain does fit, then he is unfit and it would be immoral to vote for him. Simple.
But sadly, Team NW further clouds the issue by trying to debate the doctrine of sin, even though
they already agreed with us on what would be a sin in the context of this debate. (See above.) They ask:
NWQ7: Do you contend that those who intend to vote for McCain/Palin, should be cast out of their local church assemblies if they refuse to "repent" of their decision to cast such a vote?
GGA-NWQ7: No. We simply contend that it would be a sin. Whether someone would be kicked out of church has nothing to do with the question of this debate. But, to clarify, a church member can commit a certain sin and continue to be welcome in the church. The same church member can commit a different sin and thereafter be considered anathema. After all, all sins are
not equal. If a Christian is committing unrepentant and ongoing sexual sin (adultery, for example), Paul says they should be ejected from the church. We see no indication that Paul teaches that a Christian making a single moral mistake in voting for an immoral candidate would be grounds for that Christian to be kicked out of church. However, this debate is not called "Would a vote for McCain be grounds for a church to kick out a Christian." This debate is called "Is It Immoral To Vote For McCain/Palin?" Yes, it is immoral. No, it would not be grounds to kick someone out of church. Yet another question that is a waste of time and irrelevant to the debate, but, we answered it. We could further waste time by asking Team NW if they believe that since every sin is equal, that a church should kick out a Christian for refusing to repent of saying "No," when his wife asked him, "Does this dress make me look fat?" But… we won't.
But this is the moral relativism that is at the heart of our opponents' arguments. All sins are equal, so when McCain openly advocates the legal killing of just a few unborn children, they apparently see this as no different from telling a little white lie, so they file it under the list of sins that won't get a person kicked out of church.
Haman was a lawfully-appointed government official who gave a lawful order to fund the killing of innocent people. Without having to wield a sword, he was guilty of conspiracy to murder and deserving of death. It would be immoral to vote for Haman for government office. We gave this biblical example, and then provided a much more recent real-world example in the form of Karl Sommer, a lawfully-appointed bureaucrat who wielded only a pen and ledger but who was guilty of conspiracy to slavery and murder and deserving of death. We mentioned Sommer not out of a supposedly humanist idea that mere men should be our standard, but rather to show a modern Haman as a much more tangible and relatable example in very recent history, to show a modern application of the biblical standard given in the story of Haman, and how it played out appropriately in a secular court. And it would be immoral to vote for Karl Sommer for government office. The other team agrees these two men were guilty.
But our opponents then turn to John McCain, who also funded exactly the kinds of abortions that he
wants to remain legal, and their reasoning suddenly becomes clouded. Somehow, McCain signed H.R. 3010
despite the fact that it funded the exact kinds of abortions he wants to remain legal. And then, our opponents try to suggest that we have only two choices for our vote for president.
NWQ8: Which candidates are on the ballot in a sufficient number of states to even have the mathematical possibility of being elected President?
GGA-NWQ8: In every presidential election, there are
millions of valid candidates for the office of president. I (The Graphite) am a candidate, as I am older than 35 and am a natural-born citizen. Feel free to write my name in on your ballot in November – James A. Schofield. And, if enough people in the United States vote for me in November, it is mathematically possible for me to be elected president. Is it likely? No. Is it mathematically possible? Absolutely. Any citizen meeting those requirements is a valid candidate.
NWQ9: Which candidates have the support of even a scant 10% of the US population?
GGA-NWQ9: Unknown, since polls are not mathematically certain for two reasons. First, they don't actually survey every eligible voter in America, and second, those voters may change their mind between now and November 11th. Further, since when do our moral choices depend on what we
think everyone else will probably do a month from now? A rhetorical question, because it doesn't matter. We should do the moral thing, even if every other person in America intends to do the immoral thing.
NWQ10: What is the benefit of a vote cast for a candidate who cannot win?
GGA-NWQ10: This question is 50% illogical and 50% great. It is illogical because there are no candidates "who cannot win." I can win. Alan Keyes can win. Paris Hilton can win. Any valid candidate can win if enough people vote for that person, thereby giving them enough electoral votes. If I don't win, it will be because people make that free will choice on November 4th. Not because the candidate "cannot win." However, it is a great question because it raises the issue of what is the benefit of voting for a candidate who seemingly has
little chance of winning.
If a voter votes for a godly (though imperfect) candidate rather than an unrepentant advocate of infanticide, the most obvious benefit is that the voter actually does the right thing. This has inherent value. Second, every vote for such a candidate adds to the likelihood that he
will win the election. That godly candidate will lose for no other reason than because too few people voted for him. When you create imaginary requirements to vote for only one of the two main candidates, you may prohibit yourself from doing the right thing, which then traps you in moral relativity, which then presses you into making excuses for unrepentantly wicked men like John McCain who – we'll say it again – funds abortions and advocates that "abortions should be legal."
The Democrats vs. the Whigs vs. the Republicans
Should we be afraid to vote for anyone other than the two main parties? After all, wasn't this nation founded by the Democrat and Republican parties? In fact, no. No existing political party in America even existed when this nation was founded. The idea that these two parties are the only viable options for voters is, in fact, a very un-American notion.
Let's go back to the beginning… During George Washington's terms, there was the Anti-Administration Party, which fell away and was replaced by the Democratic-Republican Party, which then was replaced by the National Republicans, which was succeeded by the Whig Party, which then faltered and saw the rise of the Republican Party which we know today. America has a long history of voting for "third parties" all the way back to the founding era of our country.
The Democratic Party is the older of the two we have now. Even though the GOP is the "grand old party," it isn't as old as the Democrats, which was founded in 1792 by Thomas Jefferson and other anti-federalists. The Republican Party's origins go back to the mid-19th century, not long before the Civil War, founded primarily by abolitionists and their sympathizers. It replaced the Whig Party.
The Whig party was named after the Whigs who had fought for America's independence against the British-loyal Tories. It existed for only two decades and got two presidents in office in that time, but in the 1850s was becoming increasingly morally compromised and irrelevant. How so?
While this may seem like a weary history lesson, we beg your patience just a little further, because this remarkable time in history had amazing parallels to our own.
What ultimately destroyed the Whigs? The slavery issue. Frankly, many in the Whig Party cared little about slavery. The Missouri Compromise had banned slavery in many western American territories while affirmatively allowing it in other territories. This created the initial rift in the Whigs, as abolitionist Christians rightly saw this as an immoral law that affirmed slavery. While the law's proponents were well-intentioned, it was a compromise … with the devil. And some Whigs began leaving the party, refusing to be a part of such a moral compromise.
The Missouri Compromise was repealed with the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, also supported by many Whigs. This act said that territories could decide for themselves whether to legalize slavery – basically a "states rights" argument except for territories. It was the Stephen Douglas argument – every state (or in this case, territory) should have the right to have legal slavery or to abolish it. Many Whigs supported this abominable insult to human rights and increasingly defended some degree of slavery. In other words, they were against slavery but allowed exceptions. Many decent Christian abolitionists refused to compromise their principles, refused to compromise on God's standard of right and wrong. And this shattered the Whig Party and brought it to an end. The courage of those uncompromising individuals gave birth to the Republican Party, all because they were brave enough to "go third party." They recognized that it would have been immoral to keep supporting the Whigs.
Were voters wrong to vote Republican instead of Whig in those days? America's history might have been terribly different had they not done so, had the voters abandoned principle and simply maintained absolute loyalty to the conservative party that had given them two presidents within a generation.
- "Please vote Whig! We must elect a Whig to the White House in order to veto bills from the Democrats in Congress!"
- "Vote Whig so we can get more Whig judges on the Supreme Court!"
- "A vote for Republicans will only help the Democrats! Don't waste your vote on a Republican!"
Such would have been the cries of those hard-line, party-first Whig loyalists. Men acting out of fear of political defeat rather than out of faith in our Creator's standard of right and wrong. Thank God some Americans abandoned the morally compromised Whig Party, and "went third party" for the Republicans of the mid-19th century. If they had not courageously supported a "third party" back then, we wouldn't even have a Republican Party today. If Abraham Lincoln had not abandoned the Whig Party and joined the Republicans… God help us all.
Wilbur Analogy
If a voter doesn't vote for one of the two main parties, is he helping the main party he doesn't belong to? This is a fallacy, as we will demonstrate with the unfortunate story of Wilbur.
Our friend Wilbur was a Republican his whole life. As a very conservative pro-lifer, he voted for Bush both times. But now in 2008, he is very disappointed in John McCain, so much so that he can't bring himself to vote for McCain. (Perhaps he will vote third party, or simply won't vote. Either way works here.) Of course, Wilbur's elephantine friends admonish him, saying "If you don't vote for McCain, you're helping Obama. You must vote your party."
Wilbur's frustration grows, but he stands firm; he will not vote for McCain.
But then, the evening of November 3rd, Wilbur cracks open a case of Michelob with an old hippy named Nick, and by morning Ol' Nick convinces Wilbur he's been wrong all along. As the sun comes up on Election Day, Wilbur is a new man – a Democrat! He believes in bigger government and the Robin Hood transfer of wealth, he wants open borders, and he is pro-choice. And yet… he really doesn't like Obama, mainly because of his lack of experience plus ethical concerns about Obama's character. Wilbur is a Democrat, but he won't vote for Obama.
Of course, his asinine friends berate him, saying "If you don't vote for Obama, you're helping McCain. You must vote your party!" And Wilbur's frustration simmers on, but he is adamant; he will not vote for Obama. And the election comes and goes.
Now, just 24 hours earlier, Wilbur's non-vote was supposedly helping the Democrats. But now, somehow, perhaps magically, his non-vote is suddenly aiding the Republicans.
Same man, same
complete lack of vote... Did his change in party affiliation actually transfer any benefit from Obama to McCain, or transfer any harm from McCain to Obama?
Of course not. McCain and Obama did just as well as they did with his non-vote in place, regardless of which party he belonged to on that particular day! They each got the same number of votes, regardless of Wilbur's current party affiliation. His non-vote didn't aid either side. Such benefit is completely imaginary and mythical, like dragons and unicorns and 4-point Calvinists...
A vote for a candidate helps that candidate. Withholding a vote from a candidate helps no one. We don't understand how some people can argue in one moment that a politician is
not responsible when he refuses to act to end or reduce abortions, and then argue later that refusing to vote for the Republican Party candidate makes one culpable for the Democrat winning? This kind of self-contradiction in many hardline Republican loyalists can be very confusing. We're thankful that Team NW hasn't resorted to this, at least not yet.
When given choices A and B, a wise man often chooses C
In truth, we are never forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Indeed, Jesus Christ came into this world to make sure we would always have a right choice, a righteous choice, to make sure that we can always have the option of doing the right thing if we choose. Without Him, those lost in the world are stuck with the moral relativism of choosing whatever man-made god is best suited to them. But, with Him, we can stand in faith, even in the face of seemingly impossible odds, and overcome evil with good, because all things are possible through Christ. You look around for the right choice, and if you don't see a right choice.... then you
are the right choice, and you can step up and be that right choice for others.
There is always a right choice. We are never forced to choose between two evils. Jesus knew this and lived it.
You know what happens when you make an assumption...
But, too many live in fear. Too many fear mere men like Obama and what he will do instead of fearing our righteous Lord and standing on His righteousness in faith, even against all odds and the threat of death itself. Too many base their moral choices on fear instead of faith. And the hardline Republican loyalists are guilty of this. "Don't vote third-party and throw your vote away because it will help Obama," they say. But their admonition is based on a fear and a massive assumption.
How is it that 50 million other people may vote for a man who advocates that "abortions should be legal," and I vote for a genuinely pro-life candidate, but if the Democrat gets elected, they McCain voters are hailed as doing the right thing and I am morally responsible for the deaths of unborn children? 50 million others voted for a conspirator to murder, and I voted for a decent, godly man, but I am guilty and they are righteous?
If Obama wins in November and someone claims that every vote for Alan Keyes helped Obama defeat McCain... then
It is just as true that if Obama wins in November, that every person who voted for McCain "helped" Obama defeat Alan Keyes! If only they had voted for Alan Keyes... If they had, Obama would have been defeated! But no, the McCain supporters split the vote and took away the chance for Keyes to defeat Obama, thus putting a real pro-lifer in the Oval Office.
Of course, a vote for McCain doesn't help Obama beat Keyes, any more than a vote for Keyes helps Obama defeat McCain. It's all just imaginary numbers distorted by fear -- fear of Obama, and fear of all of the other conservative voters.
They're afraid of what they assume millions of other conservative voters will do a month from now. They base their choice not on principle but on the idea that millions of others will vote for a man who believes "abortions should be legal," so if they don't also vote for McCain, they will somehow help the even worse candidate. The irony is that most of the other millions of conservatives also don't like McCain, but they're afraid that
you will vote for him, and so they will do what they assume
you're going to do, as well! Such voters are afraid of two things – Obama, and each other. It's a massive delusion created by political loyalists to bind decent conservative voters in fear of an imaginary boogie man, "el cu cuy," the monster under the bed.
Even if Obama promises to have every Christian in America executed on Jan 21st, 2009, we should not fear him. We should not fear the one who can kill the body. We should only fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Acting out of fear is not acting out of faith.
Any man who knowingly funds mass killing of babies and who openly agrees that "abortions should be legal" is evil. Such a man could someday be convicted at a Nuremberg II. As a third-party candidate recently remarked, "It is the devil with his mask off... chasing us into the arms of the devil with his mask on." It is the man with a heart as cold as ice... scaring us into voting for the lukewarm candidate who claims to be pro-life, sometimes even in the same breath the he affirms that "abortion should be legal." The man whom Jesus Christ would vomit out of his mouth. That is our hero, our champion, our hope for the future? No, it is a deal with the devil. The devil with his mask on.
Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 12:4-5
4 "And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!
The other team agrees it's immoral to vote for a candidate that fits the criteria we gave.
Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to kill an innocent child? They answered, "
Yes."
Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to fund the killing of an innocent child? They answered, "
Yes."
Is it immoral to vote for a presidential candidate willing to use his power as President to keep it legal to kill an innocent child? They answered "
Yes."
The other team has not denied that McCain wants to fund embryonic stem-cell research, and in fact, he has done so. The other team has not denied that McCain was willing to fund abortions. They have not denied that he advocates that "abortion should be legal," and therefore they have failed to refute that he is willing to use his power as president to keep it legal to kill an innocent child in some circumstances.
McCain fits those criteria. McCain has funded stem cell research. He has funded medical and chemical abortions. And he will keep it legal to kill the innocent child of a rapist. Therefore, even by Team NW's standard, it is immoral to vote for John McCain.
Nevertheless, our opponents seem to argue that since John McCain would oppose most abortions, that excuses his intention to keep abortion legal for a few abortions, thus making him
relatively pro-life. Rape and incest exceptions account for roughly 1% of abortions in America. Modest estimates place the total number of abortions in the neighborhood of 1 million per year. So, 1% of that would be 10,000 per year. McCain has helped fund many of those 10,000 infanticides per year, and he intends to work toward keeping abortion legal for those approximately 10,000 abortions per year. And yet they claim it is a moral act to vote for him. But, we have to wonder… if McCain were to defend, support and fund only 5,000 infanticides a year, would that make it twice as easy to vote for him? If it were only 1,000 babies a year, would it be 10 times as easy?
The Altar of Stone
Imagine if John McCain came out with a 100% pro-life position, with no exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, with the exception that once a year, he would authorize the sacrifice of just one 6-month-old baby on a stone altar with a knife… Would it be 10,000 times easier to vote for him? Would it be even a little easier? Just think – he could pay someone else to do it (with taxpayer money from you and me), so that he doesn't get his hands dirty. Just like Haman, just like the Jerusalem priests 2000 years ago, just like Karl Sommer, he could simply give the authorization to fund the killing of this one, single infant per year. Imagine all the innocent lives that could be saved. If you were a senator, would you sign that into law? As a voter, would you cast a vote for a man who advocated doing that? He wouldn't do it himself; he wouldn't be guilty of murder. He would simply advocate, defend, support and fund that single, solitary infanticide... almost no abortions at all.
GGQ19: A) Would you vote for that candidate? B) Would you vote for such a law as a senator?
