Randy Alcorn has a way with words that I don’t have. Perhaps that’s how he is able to make his living as an author! I’ve debated whether I should post this link or not. For those of you who may not agree with me politically, I hope you can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe. I am not willing to take the gamble that the abortion rates might continue to go down regardless of the President. The truth is we really don’t know what would happen with a Congress and President who are both committed to removing all restrictions on abortion. If it was a good friend or family member whose life was at stake, would I be willing to take that chance? I’m disallowing comments because I don’t wont this blog to turn into a place for debate. I’m really not assuming that I am going to change anyone’s mind, but I thought this would be a good explanation for why I feel strongly about this.
http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/im-not-voting-for-man-im-voting-for.html
Here’s a quote from the article:
Now, when someone says, “But still, abortion isn’t the only issue,” I
agree. I care very much about the poor and racial equality. That’s why if John
McCain was committed to legalizing the killing of the poor and the killing of
ethnic minorities, I would not vote for him either. But suppose you have two
candidates, one who has promised to defend and further the legalized killing of
one group of people (any group: women, minorities, disabled, unborn, poor.) You
disagree with the other candidate in areas that in their own right might be
important, but do not involve the merciless slaughter of millions of people.
Furthermore, the second candidate—whom you consider boring and
disagreeable—believes that same group of people has the right to live, and he
says he will defend their rights, and appoint judges who will defend it. Now,
which candidate should you vote for?If neither candidate were committed to the
legalized killing of people, any people, then I would say, by all means weigh
and measure those other important issues and make your choice. But can you
seriously argue that these other issues trump the killing of millions of
innocent children, not just now, but in the decades to come under a proabortion
Supreme Court that could have been a prolife Supreme Court?


