I Can't Vote...Who's With Me?

ALoveDivine · Feb 3, 2016

As counter-cultural as it is to say, it is true, abortion is willful and premeditated murder. The only exception I can think of to this rule is if the life of the woman is in clear and certain danger unless an abortion happens. Then it would qualify as a tragic but necessary.

Outside of that though, willfully murdering your child is inexcusable, and a hefty prison sentence is appropriate. But again, a HUMANE prison system is necessary.

pgp_protector · Feb 3, 2016

ALoveDivine said:
As counter-cultural as it is to say, it is true, abortion is willful and premeditated murder. The only exception I can think of to this rule is if the life of the woman is in clear and certain danger unless an abortion happens. Then it would qualify as a tragic but necessary.

Outside of that though, willfully murdering your child is inexcusable, and a hefty prison sentence is appropriate. But again, a HUMANE prison system is necessary.

So an infant can get the death penalty for endangering a woman, but a woman can't get the death penalty for murdering an infant?

ALoveDivine · Feb 3, 2016

So an infant can get the death penalty for endangering a woman, but a woman can't get the death penalty for murdering an infant?

Perhaps an example can clarify this. Not all moral issues are 100% black and white. War for example is evil. It involves the slaughter of human beings, the mass destruction of life. War is evil, yet not all participation in war is in all cases evil. War in defense of innocent life is justified, though the means are terrible.

Likewise, abortion is evil. It involves the slaughter of human beings. Yet if it is absolutely necessary to preserve innocent life (the mother) then an exception is, unfortunately, involved and would be justified.

If only all moral issues were black and white, this would all be much simpler.

dogs4thewin · Feb 3, 2016

ALoveDivine said:
As counter-cultural as it is to say, it is true, abortion is willful and premeditated murder. The only exception I can think of to this rule is if the life of the woman is in clear and certain danger unless an abortion happens. Then it would qualify as a tragic but necessary.

Outside of that though, willfully murdering your child is inexcusable, and a hefty prison sentence is appropriate. But again, a HUMANE prison system is necessary.

Remember who PAYS for that though with all the abortions that happen.

pgp_protector · Feb 3, 2016

ALoveDivine said:
Perhaps an example can clarify this. Not all moral issues are 100% black and white. War for example is evil. It involves the slaughter of human beings, the mass destruction of life. War is evil, yet not all participation in war is in all cases evil. War in defense of innocent life is justified, though the means are terrible.

Likewise, abortion is evil. It involves the slaughter of human beings. Yet if it is absolutely necessary to preserve innocent life (the mother) then an exception is, unfortunately, involved and would be justified.

If only all moral issues were black and white, this would all be much simpler.

Why is the Mother's life more Valuable than the Infant?

football5680 · Feb 3, 2016

My default position is to not vote and there hasn't been a candidate good enough to change my mind.

Extraneous · Feb 3, 2016

ALoveDivine said:
So looking at the potential candidates this upcoming election, I've concluded that I will not be voting. I know voting is in a real sense a civic duty, and this is not an easy decision to make. Unfortunately, when voting for either candidate entails endorsing moral evil, it makes more sense for us to simply not vote. At least then we are not complicit in said evil.

First we have the Republicans. Many are pro-life, some are not. But they are only pro-life in opposing abortion. Many seem to have no problem with throwing desperately poor families off the measly food-stamps and other forms of welfare they receive. Oh yeah they are explicitly in favor of keeping healthcare privatized and out of the hands of millions of poor Americans like myself. Many also seem to have no problem with notions like establishing no-fly zones over Syria and shooting down Russian jets, potentially sparking World War 3, while simultaneously arming "moderate" terrorists. So yeah, obviously there is some real moral evil there. And need I mention Trump?

Then we have the Democrats. Explicitly and unapologetically pro-murder of the unborn. They also support aggressive and absurd foreign policy, like supporting rebels and overthrowing corrupt but otherwise stable regimes in other parts of the world. Yet they are slightly less likely to get us involved in a long and bloody war with troops on the ground. On the only positive side they support progressive economic policies that may in fact help the poor and vulnerable. Yet their unwavering support for the right of women to murder their children makes it almost impossible for any Christian to vote for this party in good conscience.

So you see the dilemma. Both parties promote moral evil. No matter who you vote for, people are going to suffer and die, and by voting you become complicit in that. By not voting we are saying "no" to a choice between Evil 1 and Evil 2. By not voting we are doing the closest thing we can to voting for good. When good doesn't exist on the ballot, abstention is the only vote for good we have.

Thoughts?

Let me first say im with you on that, and let me give my opinion, based on observation over many years, and the guidance of scripture.

I believe both parties, and ultimately any other party, are controlled by the rich. The Rich run the world, they always have and always will. The republican voters believe that privatized healthcare protects the quality and integrity in HC. They also believe that its better to promote a good economy which provides good jobs. They believe this is the best way to help the poor, and to protect our freedom which protects us from government corruption. This gives us more power to ensure we have quality HC, instead of government cutbacks and fraud.

Democrats who are lead by the heart believe that giving the government total control over HC will make it better.

I believe the conservatives have the better HC agenda. Government run HC actually gives the government a monopoly on medicine. This is wrong and will give us less choice and less power over our own HC. To the contrary its better to promote privatized medicine along with proper government over site. This is the best solution for protecting the integrity of HC.

We know that government is corrupt and will corrupt HC if given the chance.

I don't believe in following any politician in any party however. Give unto Cesar that which is his, and unto God that which is God's. I believe that politics are corrupt altogether and belong to spiritual Rome, and it will corrupt anything it touches, including the church. That's my opinion. So even though i agree more with conservative politics, i don't follow them because a Christian needs no king other than Christ. My vote is eternal and is always for Christ. Its better to trust in God rather than men. Only Christ is the way truth and life. No POTUS will ever take care of me like Christ will. The Lord will never lie and his promises are sure. Unlike politicians.

Fantine · Feb 3, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
I am young ( 24) and not rich, but how are the Republicans whom I have voted for MOST of the elections of which I have so far been permitted to vote taking my vote away?

Most voter suppression laws are targeted to exclude youth (two ways--if they don't have a driver's license and if they are away at school. Did you know college ID's can't be used to register to vote in Texas while gun licenses can?) The elderly (who might no longer drive, and who might even be homebound). The poor (also less likely to drive). The working poor (by restricting or eliminating early voting and reducing voting hours, those who work shifts and whose employers won't give them time off to vote may not be able to take time off without pay). People in urban areas (less likely to drive). People with prior felonies are excluded from voting in some states--or forced to drive to the state capitol one day a year and hope the governor will decide they've reformed.

In one southern state, motor vehicle offices in urban areas where many minorities live were closed to make it harder for residents to register to vote.

Real incidences of voter fraud are almost non-existent (although the ones that exist are broadcast over and over and over).

If reformed felons were able to vote in Florida in 2000, I've been told that Al Gore would have been our president 2001-05.

So if you've managed to vote so far, consider yourself lucky. Many of your peers are getting shut out.

dogs4thewin · Feb 3, 2016

Fantine said:
Most voter suppression laws are targeted to exclude youth (two ways--if they don't have a driver's license and if they are away at school. Did you know college ID's can't be used to register to vote in Texas while gun licenses can?) The elderly (who might no longer drive, and who might even be homebound). The poor (also less likely to drive). The working poor (by restricting or eliminating early voting and reducing voting hours, those who work shifts and whose employers won't give them time off to vote may not be able to take time off without pay). People in urban areas (less likely to drive). People with prior felonies are excluded from voting in some states--or forced to drive to the state capitol one day a year and hope the governor will decide they've reformed.

In one southern state, motor vehicle offices in urban areas where many minorities live were closed to make it harder for residents to register to vote.

Real incidences of voter fraud are almost non-existent (although the ones that exist are broadcast over and over and over).

If reformed felons were able to vote in Florida in 2000, I've been told that Al Gore would have been our president 2001-05.

So if you've managed to vote so far, consider yourself lucky. Many of your peers are getting shut out.

Actually, I have voted and the youth I know who have not have been CHOICE. I know Georgia accepts state IDS you do not have to have a drive's licenice but I do not believe a college ID is enough and it should NOT be. Also, even if you do not you can still get a ballot and mail it in.

As for voting hours there in GA at least are 12 of them 7 to 7 We also allow early voting for practically anyone qualifed, I believe we allow felons to vote (provided that they are COMPLETELY off supervision. Georgia is red so red in fact that come 2018 we will have had AT LEAST 16 years of Republican governorship.

Fantine · Feb 3, 2016

I'm glad that your experience in your state has been good, that's certainly not the case everywhere.

And I guess we have something in common, because I certainly don't think gun licenses should be acceptable ID's.

dogs4thewin · Feb 3, 2016

Fantine said:
I'm glad that your experience in your state has been good, that's certainly not the case everywhere.

And I guess we have something in common, because I certainly don't think gun licenses should be acceptable ID's.

no, I have no problem with as concealed carry permit being enough, but I do NOT believe college IDS should cut it.

football5680 · Feb 4, 2016

Fantine said:
because I certainly don't think gun licenses should be acceptable ID's.

The difference between a gun license and a college ID is the fact that a gun license is actually issued by the government.

dogs4thewin · Feb 4, 2016

football5680 said:
The difference between a gun license and a college ID is the fact that a gun license is actually issued by the government.

Yes, and this is why I have no problem with a CCW being used as ID. However, not a college ID.

Fantine · Feb 4, 2016

football5680 said:
The difference between a gun license and a college ID is the fact that a gun license is actually issued by the government.

And the difference between a gun license and a college ID is that the college student is in college to further his education and contribute to society and a gun owner owns a deadly weapon, presumably with the intent to use when he, in his judgment, deems it necessary.

I know who I trust the future of our country to more.

football5680 · Feb 4, 2016

Fantine said:
And the difference between a gun license and a college ID is that the college student is in college to further his education and contribute to society and a gun owner owns a deadly weapon, presumably with the intent to use when he, in his judgment, deems it necessary.

This makes since because, as everybody knows, gun owners are not allowed to go to college.

I know who I trust the future of our country to more.

Yes, the party that supports taking away the future of innocent babies and promoting immorality.

Fantine · Feb 4, 2016

I suppose you would be surprised to learn that far fewer "innocent babies" had their futures taken away since Obama has been president, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. I know that Fox News hates to confuse their viewers with real facts.

As far as promoting immorality goes, what do you think about the party that wants to shut our doors against refugees from political persecution and separate families through deportation? What do you think about the party that wants to take away people's healthcare, privatize Social Security, cut food stamps--all to be able to afford to wage war in order to fatten the coffers of defense contractors?

That's the kind of immorality I want to end--bread and butter issues that affect millions of real people.

hsilgne · Feb 5, 2016

I didn't read through this whole thread.
So maybe someone else feels and expressed my feeling on this already.
Which is that I think it is sinful to not vote. And I base my conviction on scripture.

MATT. CH. 25: 24 - 28.

Extraneous · Feb 5, 2016

hsilgne said:
I didn't read through this whole thread.
So maybe someone else feels and expressed my feeling on this already.
Which is that I think it is sinful to not vote. And I base my conviction on scripture.

MATT. CH. 25: 24 - 28.

I would rethink that conviction.

dogs4thewin · Feb 5, 2016

Fantine said:
I suppose you would be surprised to learn that far fewer "innocent babies" had their futures taken away since Obama has been president, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. I know that Fox News hates to confuse their viewers with real facts.

As far as promoting immorality goes, what do you think about the party that wants to shut our doors against refugees from political persecution and separate families through deportation? What do you think about the party that wants to take away people's healthcare, privatize Social Security, cut food stamps--all to be able to afford to wage war in order to fatten the coffers of defense contractors?

That's the kind of immorality I want to end--bread and butter issues that affect millions of real people.

I think that that party is MOSTLY right is what I think about that party.

As for the gun owner most people will ONLY use it if they HAVE to. Have you ever heard the saying police are only minutes away when seconds count. If seconds count what good is it if help is a minute away?

havevisions · Feb 5, 2016

I am waiting to see who Chuck Norris endorses. I was going to vote for John McCain in 2008, but Chuck said he was too old.
He was for Huckabee until he dropped out, and now I'm waiting to see who he picks.

Age will not enter into it this time, however, since Chuck is now 75.

I Can't Vote...Who's With Me?

Saved By Grace

Noted strange person

Saved By Grace

dog lover

Noted strange person

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

dog lover

Dona Quixote

dog lover

Well-Known Member

dog lover

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Frustrated in Hooterville.

Well-Known Member

dog lover

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency