Skip to main content

Why I am not Voting for Jo Jorgensen

My last two posts were explanations of why I am not voting for Trump and Biden.  My Libertarian friends most likely agreed whole-heartedly with my criticism of both major candidates, but they may be wondering why I won't be voting for a third-party candidate, like Jo Jorgensen.  

Well, this post is going to be the shortest of them all.  Why am I not voting for Jo Jorgensen?  Why can't I vote for Jo Jorgensen?


That's it.  That's the only reason.

Many of my fellow Christian with Libertarian leanings can probably identify with me here.  Abortion is the reason so many people continue to vote for Republican candidates instead of the Libertarian alternatives.

Libertarians run on a platform of unabated freedom.  You want to do drugs?  That's your right.  You want to be a racist business owner who doesn't hire certain kinds of people?  That's you're prerogative.  You want to own nuclear weapons?  By George, this is America!  Go ahead and get that nuke!  

So far, so good.  I agree that the government should not be involved with any of these issues.  My preference would be a society where God's Word is consciously used as the basis for our laws, but, short of that, a Libertarian society seems like the next best option.  Freedom means having the right to be a jerk and do stupid things.  Freedom means having the right to live in a way that other people don't understand or like.  Freedom means it's not the government's job to protect me from myself.

But, abortion is not like those other issues.  Abortion is not a matter of personal preference.  Abortion is not a victimless crime. Abortion has a victim, and, therefore, demands government involvement.  Abortion is the willful taking of another person's life, and protecting life is one of the few responsibilities the government actually has.

To her credit, Jo Jorgensen wants to end government funding for abortion, but that's not good enough.  Civil governments are called, both by God and by social contract with their constituents, to protect the innocent.  Who is more innocent (legally speaking) than the unborn?  Who needs protection more than the unborn child in the womb?

This is why government support, even funding, for abortion is such a travesty.  Instead of protecting the innocent, helpless members of our society, our government calls infanticide a human right.  Woe unto those who call evil good.

So, no, I can't vote for a candidate who refuses to protect the innocent members of our society.  This is a fundamental part of what it means to be a leader, particularly in the civil realm.  I know I'm not alone here--the Libertarian party will never gain the traction necessary to field a viable candidate until they draw a hard line on abortion. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more