I am by no means, Pro-McCain…

I’m just anti-Obama.


Please read today’s WSJ article entitled, The Audacity of Life.

I had a friend explain to me the theory that, under Clinton, abortion rates went down becuase sex education funding was allowed for more than just abstinence teaching, so really Clinton was more pro-life than say, Bush. This same friend refused to answer an email about this article that showed the numbers continued to drop under the Bush administration. Now I know I am a heated guy, and can be a bombastic pain in the ass to argue with, but I will let you be the judge as to the tone and trajectory of my “argument” – if you could even call it that:

I am curious as to your opinion. I highly respect both your opinion and
the attitude you showed toward this topic, and when reading this
thought, man I wonder if there is another side, perspective, or
anything you have heard. Mostly becuase I am still on the fence
regarding how much weight this issue will carry in who I support.

Thanks man,


I did not receive a response. Why? There is no intelligent, God honoring, evangelical justification for Obama’s stance on Abortion. There are a number of intelligent, God honoring evangelical justifications for many things he is about. Abortion is not one of them.

My wife has often said that we cannot say that we are pro-life and at the same time vote for a candidate that promulgates an unnecessary war in which thousands die. In doing so, you are a hypocrite, and are really saying: I value the life of babies here, but not there. I am assuming this is part of Ryan’s reasoning for considering Obama. This is a good reason not to vote for McCain, but far from a compelling reason to vote for Obama.


Adam often makes good arguments that the government’s primary task in foreign affairs is to uphold the constitution (specifically: life, liberty and the pursuit) for it’s citizens before that of others. I agree. However, the government’s responsibility and our motives for voting are not necessarily synonymous. They can be, as in Adam’s case, but they are not required to be so.

Once again I am reminded that there is no way to vote with my conscience. With either candidate I will be voting for a man who will promote certain ideals/policies that are antithetical to Christian ethics. With this being the case I take no issue with a Christian voting for either Obama or McCain. I do have a hard time with a Christian “supporting” them. Sure, some aspects of your faith and how you think the country should be run will be appeased, but at the end you are supporting:

a) A candidate who promotes the killing of innocent children within our borders,


b) A candidate who is fine with the killing of children as long as they are outside our borders.

So here is my official endorsement: I am anti-both.


Douche and Turd. Douche and Turd.



3 Responses

  1. Your “pro-life” views will play well in latte-loving, peace-doving, Obama-shoving Portland. Which is part of the reason I can’t wait to get out of here.

    What is the alternative to war? Not-war? How do you define “peace”? Is peace the absence of conflict, or is it the presence of a means of justice and reconciliation? Is your marriage peaceful? Do you never fight? How you answer that has everything to do with how truthful such a worldview can be.

    The Iraq war was both a necessary evil and an unnecessary extravagance. We have debated this before. But you frame it using all sorts of fallacious language. Sure, there were not WMDs…there were 14 UN resolutions being violated though. The world obviously thought SOMEONE needed to clean it up in Iraq, and like always in recent history, only the US had the will and the means to do so. It has been managed poorly, but recently has been managed better.

    Is diplomacy a better solution? Or sanctions? Diplomacy is worthless without threat, as any history book will show. Our local library does not charge fines for overdue books. Does anyone return them on time? What do you think?

    Sanctions may kill more people than war. Were the 12 years between 1991 and 2003 better for the people of Iraq…fewer deaths?…better living conditions?…a chance at self-determination?…when they endured crushing, drawn-out sanctions because their governement was at war with the West and with the UN and in violation of the resolutions? I think it’s at least a toss up.

    Be cautious of taking on worldviews that are so easy to formulate. Nations will always come into conflict, and it will always lead to war. When a nation stops preparing for war, they will be conquered and overrun in a matter of time. Whether from within or from without.

  2. The other possibility is that you advocate outright pacifism. If so your view makes more sense. The problem I have with pacifism is it seems a lot like stealing from your neighbors, meaning that I use your roads, and I use your police force, and fire department, and library, etc…but if it comes down to it, you have to risk your life or your son’s life because my convictions are more important than your life.

    I know you would never wish that to someone, but pacifism says implicitly that it’s OK for you to be compelled to military service to protect all the other governement services that I will still consume. Hence stealing from your neighbors.

  3. I love you all…please don’t misread my tone. Not aggressive…serenity now, serenity now!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: