Is it a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Andres

Puritan Board Doctor
This is a spin-off from another thread. Is it a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate?
 
I would consider it sin to vote for a candidate because you hold pro-choice beliefs. However, if all candidates on the ballot are pro-choice and you are pro-life, I would make my vote go towards the candidate that best represented my views on the remainder of the topics. I would not consider it a sin for voting for a pro- choice candidate if no other voting option is given, but stay home. Why let evil take over everything else?
 
if all candidates on the ballot are pro-choice and you are pro-life, I would make my vote go towards the candidate that best represented my views on the remainder of the topics.

I think at this point it might be better not to vote at all. :2cents:
 
If you are the president of a state university and the person best qualified for the head of the organic chemistry department believes in evolution, then that doesn't disqualify the person. If you have a rare disease and you have a choice between a very qualified Jew and a Christian just out of med school, you would be an idiot to chose the Christian to care for you. I personally use a mechanic who is an unbeliever because he's so much better than the Charismatic Christian guy that no one in my family will use him anymore, even though he's a personal friend.

Why is it any different for politics? You chose the best person for all the reasons you grocery shop where you do.
 
I stand with Luther politically in that "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian." When I cast a vote for the President of the United States I will vote for who I believe would best preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. However, that will most always be the pro-life candidate because of their commitment to grant their deserved Constitutional rights to the unborn.
 
Well said by Tim.

I don't make a point to vote pro-choice, but there are circumstances where I would cast such a vote. I wouldn't be thrilled about it, but then again I am factoring in a lot more issues than abortion.

It's dangerous to label it sin to vote a certain way. One might say that it's sinful to vote for a candidate who favors abortion, and another could say it's sinful to vote for a candidate who would invade a sovereign country on shaky intelligence, resulting in the loss of thousands of lives (including our own soldiers).

If there is ever an opportunity to vote in a way that will directly and certainly prohibit abortions, I'm all in. But I've seen a lot of pro-life candidates end up doing a shoddy job as elected officials, and here we are still killing babies.
 
I would not consider it a sin for voting for a pro- choice candidate if no other voting option is given, but stay home.

Okay, then let's up the ante a bit... is it a sin to vote pro-choice if there is a pro-life candidate available to vote for?

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

If you are the president of a state university and the person best qualified for the head of the organic chemistry department believes in evolution, then that doesn't disqualify the person. If you have a rare disease and you have a choice between a very qualified Jew and a Christian just out of med school, you would be an idiot to chose the Christian to care for you. I personally use a mechanic who is an unbeliever because he's so much better than the Charismatic Christian guy that no one in my family will use him anymore, even though he's a personal friend.

Excellents points Tim and I would agree with you on them. In fact, at Thanksgiving 2010 I still remember having a conversation with an uncle who said he would never let a Muslim doctor treat him. I took your position that what if the Muslim doctor was the best doctor, yet my uncle did not relent. But I digress...
 
If you are the president of a state university and the person best qualified for the head of the organic chemistry department believes in evolution, then that doesn't disqualify the person. If you have a rare disease and you have a choice between a very qualified Jew and a Christian just out of med school, you would be an idiot to chose the Christian to care for you. I personally use a mechanic who is an unbeliever because he's so much better than the Charismatic Christian guy that no one in my family will use him anymore, even though he's a personal friend.

Why is it any different for politics? You chose the best person for all the reasons you grocery shop where you do.

Isn't this argument dependent on what category we place politics in? Is politics more analogous to fixing cars and bodies, or preaching?

The unbeliever's shortcoming is not relevant to his knowledge of mechanics or medicine. If politics were mere administration, requiring technical or relational skill above all others, then I think your argument works.

But I think politics is more than that. It is social influence, the bully pulpit, and real, actual moral representation and leadership. I believe that I will answer to God for what 'my' candidate does, as will the society who elects them. If that's the case, then the candidate's faith and morality is my first consideration, rather than the last.

If politicians are to reward good, restrain evil, and never be a terror to those who do right, then I cannot support a 'wise Turk' who has no idea what those things are.

I'll vote for the wise Turk to be head of our county water and sewer system, sure. But a legislator, judge, or chief executive? He inherently calls good as evil, and evil as good, so nope.
 
RC Sproul, Jr. on voting with abortion in mind:

"How much weight should our opposition carry? I have purposed in my heart that I would never vote for a man for any office that is not committed to using every power at his disposal to protect and defend every unborn child. Never. Ever. If every Christian would simply make that simple pledge, then we would win this battle. As it stands, at best we vote for candidates who might nominate or support judicial candidates who might vote for this small impediment or that to abortion on demand. At worst, we vote for the guy with the R by his name. We need to get rid of our strategies, and get on our knees in repentance. We need to stop negotiating with candidates over the bodies of dead babies."
 
Part of the "due diligence" (stewardship) Christians approach the life God has given them with is an assessment of those who would rule other them.

To whom much is given, much is required. (Luke 12:48)

It may not be relevant if the Public Lands Commission has a general position on sanctity of life issues (it might, but it is not likely).

But, for example, a President has power to promote or approve things where those lives are directly at stake.

For example, the largest abortion provider and lobbying group supported our current President, and made his government run healthcare legislation that passed their top priority- because it funds their provision of abortion, expands it, and sets in motion laws to gradually force abortion in every sphere. (And guarantees a funding stream to the politician's campaign contributions, but that is another issue)

To say that a Christian can be willfully ignorant of that or choose to overlook that seems to run counter to major biblical principles, particularly when there is free choice to do the opposite, and support life created in the image of God.

One other nuance to this.

The political realm and media reporting of it is rife with manipulation, prevarication and obfuscation. Certainly there are ninth commandment implications for those who engage in that.

But politicians often take more nuanced views that are supportive of sanctity on certain issues, but not on others, though they are not wholly committed to life by principle.

So, for example a politician might support de-funding the taxpayer funding of abortion in "Obamacare," might even support parental consent for a minor seeking an abortion, but still support unfettered abortion for "adults," who pay their own way.

Contrast that politician with one who wants government funding, minor access without parental consent, and with one favors unfettered dissemination of it.

In those very real cases, one often has to choose amongst the imperfect, prioritizing those who will most advance sanctity of life amongst legislation that is likely to be passed.

That may sound subjective, but it is just reality in a world encumbered by sin, and pride, and the blindness that flows from it.

Some will say things like, "Well, Christians can't be political," as an excuse either to not do their research and make hard choices, or to willingly avoid that stewardship. Or to maintain a supposed "spirituality" of "the church."

But, when the civil magistrate proposes law that directly affects protection of innocent human life, Christians need to speak out, and act, collectively and individually, and not just among themselves.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this argument dependent on what category we place politics in? Is politics more analogous to fixing cars and bodies, or preaching?

You've hit the nail on the head. Traditionally in Christian thought since Augustine at least we've had a doctrine two kingdoms. The fact that some people from a small seminary in SoCal have taken the doctrine further than it's every been taken before doesn't mean we need to over react and dismiss such an important Christian doctrine. Politics isn't in the sphere of the Church. So for instance while a woman can't teach men in a Church, a woman can teach men in a State university, even a Christian woman.

Oh, and we need to keep in mind the human tendency to justify ourselves. We all have sins we don't do, and it makes us feel better than those who commit that particular sin. We look down on a drunk while we eat too much. We look down on a man who reads p@rn while we cheat on our taxes. We look down on a politician who thinks a woman should be able to take a morning after pill after being raped but we support a godless war in Iraq which has created 300,000 Christian exiles. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
 
In choosing a plumber, mechanic or college class teacher I'm choosing a person who can offer a useful product or service in exchange for an amount of money or something else of value.

In choosing a civic leader I'm choosing a minister of God who will exercise his duties under the authority of the Law of God.

Any similarities are far out-weighed by dis-similarities.
 
If you are the president of a state university and the person best qualified for the head of the organic chemistry department believes in evolution, then that doesn't disqualify the person. If you have a rare disease and you have a choice between a very qualified Jew and a Christian just out of med school, you would be an idiot to chose the Christian to care for you. I personally use a mechanic who is an unbeliever because he's so much better than the Charismatic Christian guy that no one in my family will use him anymore, even though he's a personal friend.

Why is it any different for politics? You chose the best person for all the reasons you grocery shop where you do.


I stand with Luther politically in that "I would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian." When I cast a vote for the President of the United States I will vote for who I believe would best preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. However, that will most always be the pro-life candidate because of their commitment to grant their deserved Constitutional rights to the unborn.

I'm pretty much in agreement with both of the above statements. However i'd favor a pro-life candidate of course over a pro-choice candidate, and just because somebody claims to be pro life doesn't mean they're going to do anything about it (or actually care).

Oh, and we need to keep in mind the human tendency to justify ourselves. We all have sins we don't do, and it makes us feel better than those who commit that particular sin. We look down on a drunk while we eat too much. We look down on a man who reads p@rn while we cheat on our taxes. We look down on a politician who thinks a woman should be able to take a morning after pill after being raped but we support a godless war in Iraq which has created 300,000 Christian exiles. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

We fail to live up to even our own ethical standards.
 
You've hit the nail on the head. Traditionally in Christian thought since Augustine at least we've had a doctrine two kingdoms. The fact that some people from a small seminary in SoCal have taken the doctrine further than it's every been taken before doesn't mean we need to over react and dismiss such an important Christian doctrine. Politics isn't in the sphere of the Church. So for instance while a woman can't teach men in a Church, a woman can teach men in a State university, even a Christian woman.

Maybe I'm confused, but I don't see any of the WSCal guys disagreeing at all with the bolded portion.

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

Is politics more analogous to fixing cars and bodies, or preaching?

It's certainly not analogous to preaching.
 
In choosing a civic leader I'm choosing a minister of God who will exercise his duties under the authority of the Law of God.

Any similarities are far out-weighed by dis-similarities.

Yes. Unless you start here, you will not cast the correct vote for the right reason. Neither doctor nor a mechanic are a minister of God in the civil sphere.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

If I may be so bold, I believe some of you have forgotten this in your above answers.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

Imagine if we voted for an unqualified minister of the Word, simply because he was the best available out of a poor selection of men.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The qualifications of a minister of God in the civil sphere. He must know what is evil so that he can properly bear the sword. His economic experience and what not is so unimportant compared to this duty.
 
I would not consider it a sin for voting for a pro- choice candidate if no other voting option is given, but stay home.

Okay, then let's up the ante a bit... is it a sin to vote pro-choice if there is a pro-life candidate available to vote for?

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

If you are the president of a state university and the person best qualified for the head of the organic chemistry department believes in evolution, then that doesn't disqualify the person. If you have a rare disease and you have a choice between a very qualified Jew and a Christian just out of med school, you would be an idiot to chose the Christian to care for you. I personally use a mechanic who is an unbeliever because he's so much better than the Charismatic Christian guy that no one in my family will use him anymore, even though he's a personal friend.

Excellents points Tim and I would agree with you on them. In fact, at Thanksgiving 2010 I still remember having a conversation with an uncle who said he would never let a Muslim doctor treat him. I took your position that what if the Muslim doctor was the best doctor, yet my uncle did not relent. But I digress...

That would fall under the motive I first mentioned. If you want abortion on demand, it is a sinful attitude. It all boils down to WHY you vote for a candidate. You can't justify murder for a better economic package, In my humble opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top