How can any Christian vote for pro-abortion politicians?

[JSRG]

This is why I believe in America we need to eliminate our current first-past-the-post voting method and introduce some kind of ranked voting system. First-past-the-post always produces a two-party system, which is why America has always had a two-party system (though what two parties it is, and what their platforms are has changed many times over that history). And, I think, it is self-evident why this is a bad thing.

-CryptoLutheran

I absolutely agree that ranked choice would be better than what we have--actually, just about anything is better than first past the post, it's legitimately harder to think of a worse voting system--I am not so sure that it would actually do that much to end two-party dominance. There isn't enough data to really know.

Australia uses it and still has two dominant political parties, though they aren't quite as dominant as the US. Fiji used to use and when they did, I believe they had two dominant political parties. Papua New Guinea uses it and has more than 20 political parties in its parliament (most of which have only one representative).

So which way would the US go? It's hard to say. Fiji later turned to proportional representation, which is typically one of the best ways to enable third parties--but it still has two utterly dominant political parties if you look at their legislature. Papua New Guinea is crazy diverse, but I've also been told that the party system there is kind of weird and isn't a good way to judge how it would work elsewhere. Australia has two dominant political parties (Labour and Liberal-National). They aren't quite as dominant as in the US, but most of the time one is capable of forming a majority without the help of any other party.

So it's tricky to know which way it would swing. With Fiji, it seems--at least based on the results--that you'd end up with two political parties regardless of the system, and Papua New Guinea may not be applicable at all. Australia would seem the closest, but perhaps they, like Fiji, just have most of the population content with one of the two major parties and therefore they are dominant. Perhaps any Australian can explain if that is the case.

Certainly, though, even if it leaves a two-party system in place, ranked choice would be an improvement.

 

[JSRG]

Both the UK and Canada have first-past-the-post and they have third parties.

True, but the two countries still have two dominant parties. And it should be noted that in both countries, the most powerful of the third parties--Bloc Quebecois in Canada and the Scottish National Party in the UK--are regional parties. If not for Quebec and Scotland, you'd see even greater dominance of the two major parties in each country.

 

[DamianWarS]

This is why I believe in America we need to eliminate our current first-past-the-post voting method and introduce some kind of ranked voting system. First-past-the-post always produces a two-party system, which is why America has always had a two-party system (though what two parties it is, and what their platforms are has changed many times over that history). And, I think, it is self-evident why this is a bad thing.

-CryptoLutheran

In practice yes, for example first-past-the-post voting system is in Canada and although Canada has several parties only 2 are really competing for the top, and it's always the same two. But because it has a bunch of parties with electected officials it keeps issues from becoming too polarized. Left can't go to far left otherwise their votes will go to someone more mid-left. And right can't go too far right otherwise their votes will go to someone mid-right. It's important because losing 5% to an alternative party may be enough to loose the election.

Multiparties (over 2) first-past-the-post systems may have two at the top but that doesn't mean 3rd, 4th and 5th didn't get votes and have elected officials. When it's only 2 then there is a clear winner, when the votes are distributed to 5 or 6 parties the person with the most votes win but that may not be the majority of the votes. In the case of a minority government they have less control and rely on partnerships which also has a balancing effect and keeps things less polarized. The current government of Canada is a minority government. I'm not saying Canada's system is flawless but it certainly is less polarized and polarization in the US right now is a major issue.

 

[DamianWarS]

True, but the two countries still have two dominant parties. And it should be noted that in both countries, the most powerful of the third parties--Bloc Quebecois in Canada and the Scottish National Party in the UK--are regional parties. If not for Quebec and Scotland, you'd see even greater dominance of the two major parties in each country.

Those other parties still influence the system and tend to keep things from going to their polarized ends. With only 2 parties each is encouraged to take a more polarized position over a more balanced one to get those votes.

 

[Arcangl86]

True, but the two countries still have two dominant parties. And it should be noted that in both countries, the most powerful of the third parties--Bloc Quebecois in Canada and the Scottish National Party in the UK--are regional parties. If not for Quebec and Scotland, you'd see even greater dominance of the two major parties in each country.

The NDP in Canada was the Official Opposition as recently as 7 years ago, and they often ally with the Liberals to ensure a Liberal minority government. The Lib Dems were in a coalition with the Tories about the same amount of time. And while the SNP can be described as Labour with Scottish accents, the same can't be said about the BQ which is a pretty big tent party, so if they were to dissolve, no one party would benefit.

 

[sanddjam]

Some where in the OT an unborn child is valued at two bulls and two goats or something close to that, From ancient times abortion was common to Pagan practice and is certainly evil; but there are time when a choice of the lessor evils is required.

So far in our time we are not forced to have abortions; since the Inquisitions we have not been forced to break the commandments, but it will happen again.

God gives us the government we deserve so before being upset with the government we should look at our selves; instead of being too concerned about abortion, we should ban fornication; this would also restrict the spread of diseases, like covid.

Prevention will always be the cure. Jesus sacrificed Himself to deliver us for sexual immorality, alcohol, drugs, hatred, fear, anger, various sicknesses and diseases. Jesus came to help and to prevent us from hurting ourselves and others. If we are Christians (Like Christ), why don't we listen to Him and administer His cure? Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

 

[stevevw]

Here's a dilemma. The way things are going nowadays all prospective candidates or parties may support abortion one day. If voting is compulsory what do you do then.

 

[sparow]

Imho much depends on the decision making process for a Christian. What is their source of authority? If a Christian takes the Holy Bible as their highest source of authority then abortion is out:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" (Jeremiah 1:5)

Abortion is murder but it's far worse than that alone. The Lord has created that person in the womb for a purpose, abortion is murder against a person and rebellion against God's purpose and will.

If a 'Christian' takes human reason, their own feelings or the changing info from a celebrity speaker then they can probably believe or do anything. I think it all goes back to the supreme importance of preaching the gospel, too many people in churches are not born again. God Bless

There is nothing technically wrong with a Christian being in government, should strive to retain the Law of God in Government, but they should not force their minority view on Pagans; they should seek freedom in religion so that Christian people do not have to have abortions. Christians outside of government should present themselves as role models, not as judges.

Daniel was a prime minister in Babylon; he never opposed the building of idols, but he refused to bow down to them.

Jeremiah 1:5 , refers to Jeremiah himself; Matt 7:23 refers to those who abrogate the Law, not Pagans, who are not considered, lest they convert, and are no longer Pagan.

Abortion breaks the Law, but to call it murder is to disregard or minimize the rest of the Law. Also fanatical Christians do not allow for exceptions to the Law; The written Law is like a brick wall, the Law in practice is not.

 

[sparow]

Prevention will always be the cure. Jesus sacrificed Himself to deliver us for sexual immorality, alcohol, drugs, hatred, fear, anger, various sicknesses and diseases. Jesus came to help and to prevent us from hurting ourselves and others. If we are Christians (Like Christ), why don't we listen to Him and administer His cure? Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.

Do you know of any Christians who approve of abortion on demand? Abortion belongs to the world that Christians are required to be set apart from. Jesus died because the covenant demanded it; with out which there could not be salvation for those chosen.

 

[jamiec]

If I didn't vote for politicians whose platforms included policies I dislike, I would either never vote, or waste my vote on a party that was, realistically, not going to win any seats. I would vote for Labour only in order to keep out the Scottish Nationalists. None of the larger parties have policies that are not objectionable - one can do no more than choose the best of a bad lot.