(as originally posted on ProLifebook.com)
As I watch people I have held in high regard, otherwise principled men of authority, succumb to compromise once again, I find myself struggling with the thought that perhaps we, who classify ALL innocent Life as sacred and worthy of protection, are growing to be a rare breed. When a man, who not only has a dark past but a compromised current view of abortion, is touted by some Pastors, "pro-life" groups, and otherwise principled citizens as being one who stands for Life, when his own public statements make it clear that a percentage of innocent babies will die with his apathetic approval, and his obvious judicial supremacy ideology will translate into the same status-quo stand, who will rise up and usher-in an end to the forty years of bloodshed? Some members of this very site, whose organizations are looked to as champions for Life, have gone out of their way to portray this compromised man as a pro-Life candidate. In my pro-Life opinion, we are allowing someone who will undoubtedly turn his back on a segment of innocent babies, be the new poster-boy for a principle he simply does not subscribe to.
Those who endorse such a man for the sake of defeating another, simply because that other man allows "more" murder, are sending a message to all those of struggling conscience that "pro-abortion for some" is OK, because it's not pro-abortion for all. When people and organizations, whose alleged stated purpose is the protection of the unborn, will disregard a third-party candidate whose primary platform plank is his intent to make a Presidential finding on Personhood and immediately battle abortion from the Oval Office, all because they don't like his odds of winning, they are just as compromised as the man they are endorsing. These people know who Tom Hoefling is and what he is doing, yet would rather be on the side of popularity and "good odds" by supporting Mitt Romney, who not only has a very deadly record, but supports abortion for some babies. They are sending a clear message to those on the fence- "a little murder is OK if it's less murder than the previous administration" and sadly even that is not a certain outcome.
These compromised organizations and people are showing the Nation who looks to them for Pro-Life direction, "we won't support the Personhood Candidate because of name-recognition, and we won't do anything to improve his chances- which could mean the abolition of abortion. No, we will instead put our money on a compromised man, who may or may not allow less to be murdered, and we'll just cut our losses". Well folks, those "losses" you are nonchalantly willing to "cut" (good word) amounts to a MINIMUM of 54,000 innocent babies in one Presidential term, and that is under the unlikely assumption that he will be successful in his plans for legislation and judicial opinions. I refuse to accept the fact that because leaders in the pro-Life community won't do the Right thing, we are somehow obligated to follow suit. A vote for Obama is a vote for death. A vote for Romney is also a vote for some Death.
So "Mr.Pro-Life Organization Leader": if you don't like Tom Hoefling's chances at winning this election, what have You done, or what could You do to change that? Writing him off comes with 54,000 deaths, and that sir, is Not Pro-Life!
As I watch people I have held in high regard, otherwise principled men of authority, succumb to compromise once again, I find myself struggling with the thought that perhaps we, who classify ALL innocent Life as sacred and worthy of protection, are growing to be a rare breed. When a man, who not only has a dark past but a compromised current view of abortion, is touted by some Pastors, "pro-life" groups, and otherwise principled citizens as being one who stands for Life, when his own public statements make it clear that a percentage of innocent babies will die with his apathetic approval, and his obvious judicial supremacy ideology will translate into the same status-quo stand, who will rise up and usher-in an end to the forty years of bloodshed? Some members of this very site, whose organizations are looked to as champions for Life, have gone out of their way to portray this compromised man as a pro-Life candidate. In my pro-Life opinion, we are allowing someone who will undoubtedly turn his back on a segment of innocent babies, be the new poster-boy for a principle he simply does not subscribe to.
Those who endorse such a man for the sake of defeating another, simply because that other man allows "more" murder, are sending a message to all those of struggling conscience that "pro-abortion for some" is OK, because it's not pro-abortion for all. When people and organizations, whose alleged stated purpose is the protection of the unborn, will disregard a third-party candidate whose primary platform plank is his intent to make a Presidential finding on Personhood and immediately battle abortion from the Oval Office, all because they don't like his odds of winning, they are just as compromised as the man they are endorsing. These people know who Tom Hoefling is and what he is doing, yet would rather be on the side of popularity and "good odds" by supporting Mitt Romney, who not only has a very deadly record, but supports abortion for some babies. They are sending a clear message to those on the fence- "a little murder is OK if it's less murder than the previous administration" and sadly even that is not a certain outcome.
These compromised organizations and people are showing the Nation who looks to them for Pro-Life direction, "we won't support the Personhood Candidate because of name-recognition, and we won't do anything to improve his chances- which could mean the abolition of abortion. No, we will instead put our money on a compromised man, who may or may not allow less to be murdered, and we'll just cut our losses". Well folks, those "losses" you are nonchalantly willing to "cut" (good word) amounts to a MINIMUM of 54,000 innocent babies in one Presidential term, and that is under the unlikely assumption that he will be successful in his plans for legislation and judicial opinions. I refuse to accept the fact that because leaders in the pro-Life community won't do the Right thing, we are somehow obligated to follow suit. A vote for Obama is a vote for death. A vote for Romney is also a vote for some Death.
So "Mr.Pro-Life Organization Leader": if you don't like Tom Hoefling's chances at winning this election, what have You done, or what could You do to change that? Writing him off comes with 54,000 deaths, and that sir, is Not Pro-Life!
Don't worry, that was just a child conceived in rape. Mr. Romney and those who support him say it doesn't matter.