A pro life voter who Attempts to justify a vote for Obama is rationalizing.

I would also like to add that I look forward to debates such as these. I believe common ground can be reached without hearts and minds being so hindered by agenda. And hopefully perspectives can change. This will be my first debate and I thank my opponent for his challenge and taking a chance on a newcomer such as myself. RESOLVE: There is no contradiction in a "PRO-LIFER" voting for a "PRO-CHOICER". Here are my following arguments: I believe there is no contradiction in a prolife advocate voting for a prochoice advocate. >>>If you believe that God has chosen to determine who our leaders will be (sounds like a cop-out to me) then why bother to vote? Do we not plan even though God determines our steps? "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps. " – Proverbs 16:9 Additionally, it is not a "cop-out" in light of passages that say, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. " – Romans 13:1 The U. S. is a governing authority. The office of the president is a governing authority. God established all authority. God established the United States Presidents. God established Barack Obama. Does this make God a "PRO-LIFER" or a "PRO-CHOICER? " >>>Voting for the "better of two evils is still voting for evil. You (and I) could have voted for Alan Keyes. I admit that I did the wrong thing. A famous quote that is well known is, "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. " – Edmund Burke The action of voting against "evil" is not the same as voting for "evil. " I chose to vote for the candidate that I believed would do the best job. So why not vote? Well I think it is self-evident. >>>I think Keyes comes much closer to what we claim, we believe. Someone claiming to believe what I believe is different from someone displaying qualities of moral character, nobility and sound judgment. >>>You said: "So I have to go with the one I believe will do the most good . .. A false premise always results in an invalid conclusion. Major Premise: Choose the candidate that will do the most good that will not promote laws that cause people to sin. Premise: War causes people to sin. Premise: If you refuse to participate in a draft there will be consequences (imprisonment). Premise: Most Presidents (Dem or Rep. ) believe war to be a justifiable means to defend the freedom of the United States of America. Premise: Barack Obama (D) voted against the war while serving as Illinois U. S. Senate (his present position is debatable) Premise: Barack Obama supports abortion, but not the war. Premise: Laws allowing abortion (regardless of term), though horrendous in thought, however does not cause women to have abortions. There are no laws that would imprison a woman if she refuses to abort a child. Conclusion: Voting for Barack Obama would accomplish my goal in my Major Premise. Make sense? >>>The Repubs have no pro-war plank. A simple review of modern era (1900-present) war-time presidents reveals >>>that Dem presidents were far more likely to get us into (or keep us in) war. >>>To say that war is controlled by presidential edict, but abortion is not, is patently false. By your reasoning you believe laws control actions and they do not. "…if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! " – Galatians 2:21 Even in the case of war. A president or a congressional concurrence cannot force anyone to pick up a gun and shoot the "enemy" (such as the case with Muhammad Ali). However, there are consequences that force compliance such as torture does for confessions. Therefore, there is more control, whether direct or indirect that causes a person to sin (in war) than there does exist regarding abortion. "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. " - Matthew 18:6 Therefore, it is better to not cause someone to sin rather than support a law that would allow someone to sin. >>>The president may not legally enter into a war without congressional concurrence. . .. >>>Therefore, the president, does control abortion, albeit, indirectly. The president does not control a woman's choice. Therefore, he does not control abortion. He controls the laws indirectly (as you say) that govern abortion, but he himself does not determine what a woman will do with an unborn child. >>>Presidents of the modern era (1900-2009) and their wars: 26. Theodore Roosevelt - Republican 1901-1909 No War . .. >>>36. Lyndon Johnson - Democrat 1963-1969 Continued Vietnam War Only this part forward of your stats are valid for what we know of today as Democrats and the Republican Party. (See . http://en.wikipedia.org... "When the Democratic left took over their party in 1972, Nixon won reelection by carrying 49 states. His involvement in Watergate brought disgrace and a forced resignation in 1974 and any long-term movement toward the GOP was interrupted by the scandal. " >>>37. Richard Nixon - Republican 1969-1974 Ended Vietnam War . .. 43. George W. Bush - Republican 2001-2009 Started Afghan & Iraq wars. >>>44. Barack Obama (1961- ) Democrat 2009- Continues Afghan & Iraq wars. Therefore according to the 37th through the 44th Presidents 2 republicans entered or started a war and only 1 Democrat entered a war before the 2008 election. Also, as a result of understanding the transition of the Democratic Party and the History of the Republican Party we would note that the stats for the 26th through the 36th Presidents would be in reverse since the ideals of the Democratic Party were actually the Republican prior to 1960. Therefore, you have 5 "Democrats" who would be considered Republicans today that have entered, escalated or continued war as opposed to 6 "Republicans" (Democrats) who have either ended a war or did not enter, escalate or continue a war. In fact, your statistics only prove to strengthen my position. That is a total of 8 to 1 in favor of war for the Republican Party. >>>Do you actually believe that defensive war is immoral? "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. " – 2nd Corinthians 10:3 This is not an implied "turn the other the cheek" moral code (though that is sufficient). This is a direct "do not wage war" command. How can you uphold Christ as King and yet let another ruler veto His commands? >>>"A person still has to choose to have an abortion. " >>>My answer: . .. and an enemy still has to choose to attack the USA. They are different because if a woman chooses not to have an abortion – she does not go to jail. However, if a person chooses not to engage in war if they are drafted (regardless if our enemy chooses to attack) then they will be imprisoned. >>>Did you look for any[evidence]? I did not have to look for "any. " The same "evidence" you list is the same that came across my news channel as well. In fact, recently I watched Barack's full rebuttal to the Rev. Wright charges – outstanding! As for the other evidence I will simply defer this question to my next remarks regarding Obama showing himself to be unlike any Presidential candidate I've ever seen. >>>Excluding race, how is Obama unlike any presidential candidate, you've ever seen? No other opponent came close to his tact or poise. So when you see a candidate that is able to raise $745 million in campaign contributions; win states that were largely favored by his opponents; set a new precedent in web-campaigning; and stir the hearts of a nation by speaking a message of unity and not division. Then, yes indeed, you have a unique candidate.