Missive to the Naïve or Confused

In a hypothetical free election, within a supposedly "two-party" system, where the candidates participating were Churchill, Hitler and Mussolini, would you be voting for Mussolini in order to avoid the greater evil of Hitler?

You’ve forwarded some interesting information lately, which requires really creative mental gymnastics in order to arrive at your point of view. In short, your apologetics for election behavior relies on a faulty premise – that a third party or independent candidate absolutely cannot win the Presidency of the United States. From there, you reason that a vote for anyone other than John McCain would be a vote for Barack Obama, because it would take away a vote from McCain. In recent days, you’ve argued that we can narrowly define McCain as Pro-Life, strictly upon the issue of Abortion, while disregarding his stance and record on the other "non-negotiable" issues. You’ve quoted Church authority while trying to inform people about what is common knowledge from even the most rudimentary information available – that Obama is more pro-death than McCain. You’ve quoted other statistics that show what pre-borns would lose without a "Pro-Life" President in office. However, all of those lynchpin scenarios are based on the performance of George W. Bush. McCain is NOT Bush. You, and others, have redefined the term Pro-Life more loosely so as to exclude the other established non-negotiable benchmarks in an effort to qualify McCain for that mantle.

We don’t have to go back in history to even allow for a "change-of-heart" to muddy the waters of credibility. McCain has recently reiterated his support of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, but that he’d be willing to "listen" to evidence that would persuade him to abandon that position in favor of adult stem cell usage. The information that adult stem cells have produced remedies and even cures, and embryonic usage has produced nothing but dangerous mutations has been out there since before he has done his voting as a Senator. More importantly, using human embryos ethically disrespects their human nature and contributes to the growth of the abortion industry. As an advocate for the pre-born who has been at it for a while, you cannot tell me that you are unaware of this fact. Furthermore, you should know that the Partial Birth Abortion ban, even though McCain supported it, has not saved any later term pre-borns. The preferred method for aborting late term fetuses is injecting them with digoxin in the heart to kill them, dilating the cervix with laminaria, and having the mother go through labor and delivery to expel the corpse. The whole argument over whether McCain supported the ban and Obama did not, is a red herring of no real significance to the Pro-Life Movement.

What the so-called Conservative Christians and so-called Pro-Life *leaders* have been promulgating for the Movement is a course of action that Israel just took regarding Hezbollah. They set a precedent by trading 5 dangerous, known terrorists – criminals in custody – and in return got 2 dead hostages. The Arab terrorist world is empowered with this lopsided *deal* but it endangers all future Israeli captives, and actually fosters terrorism. Is the *incrementalism* of concessions by Israel working to establish *Peace* with their Arab neighbors? Only a fool would believe so, when even as the Arabs are negotiating for their lopsided deals, they are not bashful about stating that their ultimate goal is the annihilation of Zion.

Just so, how are we to convince diehard pro-aborts (and their captive media audience of silent fence-sitters) through incremental persuasion that the fertilized egg known as a pre-born human is worthy of personhood, if we unconscionably codify the embryo-ignoring McCain as being acceptably *Pro-Life*?

What is even more heinous, ethically, than an outright vote for Obama? …the complete deception and muteness of people within the Pro-Life Movement about a legitimate Pro-Life alternative. One can understand the liberal pro-abort radicals stifling the Alan Keyes message. One can understand the liberal-sympathizing media for being accomplices in that blackout. But how can folks who call themselves Christian Pro-Lifers actively participate in the deception that we have no recourse but to choose evil? Fr. Frank Pavone and his lackey gatekeepers refuse to even allow this discussion to occur on his blog. After soliciting questions about Pavone’s strategy for voting, the "moderator" truncated the discussion and literally censored the Truth, that there is a positive hope-filled alternative. He refused to let my question and his answer appear on the blog, and instead gave me a private dodge by e-mail. How could a Christian have more fear and cynicism than to actively deny discussion? That, my friend, is a lack of faith that the righteous actions of people with Godly behavior can bring about positive results according to the Word of God. It is none-other than a wholesale surrender to Relativism – that "God is dead" and there is no discernable objective Truth available to humankind.