About abortion and the candidates. Abortion takes a life because no rational criteria can draw a line at any date to distinguish between late-term infanticide of a separate individual and whether the baby is part of the mother in the early term. However, only God's law and love will solve that problem. Human law does not always work the way we intend it to, because it uses violence to punish after the fact of action. If brought to full force to stop abortion, human law would have to be fascist and totalitarian in scope. Once it takes over, a fascist government would no longer care about the morality that it used as an excuse to gain power, and would simply use that power to kill indiscriminately. So, looking to government for morality is a mistake.
Besides this, neither candidate is legitimate under the 12th Amendment, which states that electors should vote for President and Vice President on separate lists, that a quorum of the House should then decide from the top three for President if no one gets a majority, and the Senate from the top two for V.P. Instead, the parties have hijacked state law to use primary elections to get the office, and then they essentially appoint a V.P. from their own party. They do this, and the gerrymandering which keeps districts and the senate divided 50/50, so that critical votes in the Senate can be controlled from the White House using the V.P.'s tiebreaker vote.
So in a lot of ways, the person you vote for is irrelevant. But that does not mean that we should not participate in our government. Indeed, it means the opposite. Society is run by those who show up. It means we should get our hands dirty and participate all the more, speak out and stand up and testify.
So, which candidate do you think will A) kill fewer people in war, B) not drive the U.S. into bankruptcy and social chaos, and C) help provide resources and healthcare to single mothers and adoptive parents so that abortion does not beckon as the easiest way out of difficult situations?
