The Rev. Christopher Esget of Immanuel Lutheran Church & School in Alexandria, VA wrote this yesterday. You can see it in its original context at Esgetology.
On this question, some have decided “yes.” I cannot disagree more. I do not endorse the Republican candidate; I honestly have not decided for whom I will vote tomorrow. But I know it will not, cannot, must not be for Sen. Obama, nor for any candidate for any federal or state legislative or executive office who supports abortion. I believe that makes one complicit in the act of murder.
A recent article by Randy Alcorn addressed this topic better than I have. Here are some excerpts:
So, is the candidate’s stand on the issue of shedding innocent blood important enough to disqualify him as a candidate? Yes. While a single issue can’t qualify a candidate, it can disqualify him. In my opinion, this issue clearly disqualifies Barack Obama, just as it disqualified Republican Rudy Giuliani.
I don’t think someone is a good candidate just because he is prolife. But he cannot be a good candidate unless he is prolife. Personally, if he is committed to legalized child-killing, as a matter of conscience I must vote against him….
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?
Don’t you believe that though there were other issues in Nazi Germany besides the killing of Jews, Gypsies and the disabled, that all those other issues were trumped by that one? If Lincoln’s platform involved ending slavery yet you agreed with Douglas (who wanted slavery to remain legal) in lots of other areas, would you feel right voting for Douglas, knowing you were voting for slavery?
So I say OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES. I don’t minimize them. All I can say is the differences between the candidates on those issues don’t stack up, even cumulatively, to the legalized killing of human beings. It’s a matter of relative importance, not just a number of issues. A man who is a good husband in most respects, but who beats his wife, is not a good husband. That issue outweighs all the others.
You can read the entire article here. I don’t agree with his perspective that there are only two candidates in this race. While there are two major parties, I think a person should be free and willing to vote his conscience, and not simply do what is “pragmatic.” There are no wasted votes. But there are immoral ones.