Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

[1Timothy115]

Have you noticed, presidential elections seems to cause more divisions among Christians more than anything else.

Looks to me like Mr. Rommy will be able to write a book on how a rich man can buy the presidency of this United States of America, or at least the republican party nomination.

Either way the Mormon faith will gain more respectability in this nation than it has ever had, with many Christians thinking its just another Christian group.

I'm with you...Mormonism is a cult.

[heartstrings]

I'm voting for the small one........
http://static.neatorama.com/images/2010-07/lesser-of-two-weevils.jpg

Edited February 7, 2012 by heartstrings

[JerryNumbers]

If that is true, it's sad. My husband was "de-friended" on FB because he doesn't support Santorum. People take this WAY too seriously and personally. I love a good discussion; that's why I'm in here. I honestly don't care who my friends are voting for; it's between them and the Lord. But I like to make people think, and have my own thinking challenged as well. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone have a problem with taking "electability" into consideration when making a choice about a primary vote. I'm having a good time discussing it, and I assure you my feelings aren't getting hurt.

And, I don't "like" ANY of the Republican candidates; I can't get excited about any of them. But if one of them beats Obama, the nation will be better off for sure, if only a little. (I'm not holding my breath.)

Haven't you noticed the division that shows up on these 122 post & 7 pages right here in this topic?

[Annie]

Haven't you noticed the division that shows up on these 122 post & 7 pages right here in this topic?

I don't think of it as "division," but as "discussion" among friends. That's how I see it, anyway. I don't see it as a serious enough thing to "divide" Christian brothers and sisters. Anyone who does shouldn't get involved in discussions like this one.

[JerryNumbers]

Take notice if the seriousness of the disablement on who to vote for or not vote for. And of course its mild here compare to what it is in other places.

[Annie]

Take notice if the seriousness of the disablement on who to vote for or not vote for. And of course its mild here compare to what it is in other places.

I guess I don't care if someone wants to promote "their guy" for President. I'm just really surprised that some are so committed to Ron Paul, of all people. I know all about "spin," and I take the kind of comments you're talking about with a grain of salt...such as the whole explanation of RP's desire to legalize wicked stuff so that states can have "their Constitutional rights." It seems like people get so caught up in all of the hoopla/support for a particular candidate--they get so used to building up a case for that candidate and defending his weak areas--that they become blinded to reason in one or more areas. If prostitution and drug use have to be legalized b/c of so-called states' rights...if more of my fellow American men are dragged to degredation, more families torn apart, and more children neglected because of their parents' drug addictions, all in the name of states' rights...I'm sorry, but states' rights can go straight to the netherworld. If the federal government (with all of its bloated self-importance and wastefulness and blah blah blah) actually makes a right decision, a decision in accordance with God's law, then I rejoice. If I have to choose between the Constitution and the Bible, I'll pick the Bible every time. It's the whole lesser of two evils thing again. No option is ideal. Hey, I'm a states' rights, small government kind of girl! But if the two choices are 1) allow the federal government to ban obvious wickedness that will wreak havoc in our society and 2) give each state an opportunity to decide to legalize these things (which many will) in the name of "the Constitution," common Christian sense tells me that the choice is clear. (The Founders themselves--if they knew the state of American society today--would be outraged at Ron Paul's opinions in this area.) It's a good thing he isn't electable.

I should add that although I've made it known that I'm voting for Gingrich, I am not blind to his many faults. As I've repeatedly stated, he has baggage just like the rest of the candidates. I know that, and I don't defend his marital unfaithfulness. I'm not excited about any of the Repubs--they all have glaring faults. But any of them would be better than Obama.

I do have a question for RP supporters: Will you vote for the Republican nominee against Obama in the general election? Edited February 7, 2012 by Annie

[John81]

I guess I don't care if someone wants to promote "their guy" for President. I'm just really surprised that some are so committed to Ron Paul, of all people. I know all about "spin," and I take the kind of comments you're talking about with a grain of salt...such as the whole explanation of RP's desire to legalize wicked stuff so that states can have "their Constitutional rights." It seems like people get so caught up in all of the hoopla/support for a particular candidate--they get so used to building up a case for that candidate and defending his weak areas--that they become blinded to reason in one or more areas. If prostitution and drug use have to be legalized b/c of so-called states' rights...if more of my fellow American men are dragged to degredation, more families torn apart, and more children neglected because of their parents' drug addictions, all in the name of states' rights...I'm sorry, but states' rights can go straight to the netherworld. If the federal government (with all of its bloated self-importance and wastefulness and blah blah blah) actually makes a right decision, a decision in accordance with God's law, then I rejoice. If I have to choose between the Constitution and the Bible, I'll pick the Bible every time. It's the whole lesser of two evils thing again. No option is ideal. Hey, I'm a states' rights, small government kind of girl! But if the two choices are 1) allow the federal government to ban obvious wickedness that will wreak havoc in our society and 2) give each state an opportunity to decide to legalize these things (which many will) in the name of "the Constitution," common Christian sense tells me that the choice is clear. (The Founders themselves--if they knew the state of American society today--would be outraged at Ron Paul's opinions in this area.) It's a good thing he isn't electable.

I should add that although I've made it known that I'm voting for Gingrich, I am not blind to his many faults. As I've repeatedly stated, he has baggage just like the rest of the candidates. I know that, and I don't defend his marital unfaithfulness. I'm not excited about any of the Repubs--they all have glaring faults. But any of them would be better than Obama.

I do have a question for RP supporters: Will you vote for the Republican nominee against Obama in the general election?

What you say here gives the impression you believe it's okay to disregard the Constittution in order to put forth your preferences but it's not okay when others do so.

There is built within the Constitution the means to change things at that level, and that's the only legal and proper means to do so. When anyone of any view goes about doing what the Constitution doesn't allow, they are breaking the law.

If following the Constitution is such a wicked thing, then how did America manage to do so well for so long doing that and why have most of the upheavals in America been due to attempts to thwart the Constitution?

The fact is, under the Constitution, the federal government is to have very limited duties and powers. Everything else is left to the States and the people. The only reason we are facing such a mess over "same sex marriage" is because the Constitution was usurped, putting most things under the power of those in federal government. Were the Constitution still followed there could be no national effort to push homosexuality upon the nation.

Under the Constitution, the federal government has very limited law enforcement duties and powers. All other matters of law are the domain of the States and people. Under the Constitution, if California legalized the murder of unborn babies, that wouldn't mean the other States had to agree or that there would suddenly be a national court case trying to force abortion upon all States.

The Constitution is pretty plain in what is says and means. For those who still seem to have a problem understanding, and thinking they need more "interpretation", the Founders left plenty of documentation explaining just what was, and wasn't, meant in the Constitution.

As to the politicians in the election now it's very difficult to perceive how anyone could think there would be any signifcant difference between a Newt, Mitt or Barak in the White House. All three are committed to the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government. All three would continue to grow and expand the federal government. All three are comitted to globalization.

How many Republican presidents and Republican congresses do we have to go through, seeing the continuation of America going the wrong direction just as it does with Dems in control, before we realize they are all going the same way?

In my own lifetime we can look from JFK to BHO and see America has steadily gotten worse, not better. Over these years we have had several Republican presidents, none of which stopped the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government nor did anything to restore the Constitution. In face, the federal government grew under each of them.

So, after Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One and Bush Two, we see America worse now than before. Twenty-eight years of Republican presidents and America still got worse.

[Annie]

What you say here gives the impression you believe it's okay to disregard the Constittution in order to put forth your preferences but it's not okay when others do so.

That you, a man who claims to be a Christian, would call the desire to stave off drug abuse, child neglect, prostitution (and everything else that goes along with these clearly anti-biblical, immoral and just plain wicked behaviors) a "preference" just blows my mind. It reveals a lot about where you're coming from (and makes me a whole lot less likely to listen to your views on this subject).

There is built within the Constitution the means to change things at that level, and that's the only legal and proper means to do so. When anyone of any view goes about doing what the Constitution doesn't allow, they are breaking the law.

This statement is meaningless to me. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify? (What level? What things?)

If following the Constitution is such a wicked thing, then how did America manage to do so well for so long doing that and why have most of the upheavals in America been due to attempts to thwart the Constitution?

Did I say that following the Constitution is a wicked thing? The ease with which you attempt to spin what I've said makes me wonder if you should be running for President!

The fact is, under the Constitution, the federal government is to have very limited duties and powers. Everything else is left to the States and the people. The only reason we are facing such a mess over "same sex marriage" is because the Constitution was usurped, putting most things under the power of those in federal government. Were the Constitution still followed there could be no national effort to push homosexuality upon the nation.

What? You cannot be serious, John. The definition of marriage has been left up to each state. It has nothing to do with the federal government. The reason that there is a national effort has nothing to do with the federal government. It has more to do with the courts' abuse of power, combined with the widespread use of technology (resulting in a whole lot more "bandwagons") which are different problems altogether.

The problem is not whether the federal government or the state government decides that same-sex marriage is OK...It's that ANYONE is deciding that it's OK. It's not a political problem; it's a spiritual problem. America's being eaten by cancer, and it makes little difference whether the feds or the states are the carcinogen.

Look, I was born in 1973--in Missouri--the date and place where Roe v. Wade was decided. It made little difference to the babies who would have been in my graduating class whether the state of Missouri or the federal government made the decision that their lives were expendable. The point is that NO ONE should be able to decide that; it shouldn't even be an issue that comes up for debate. Abortion, along with prostitution and drug abuse, is a moral issue. I could NEVER vote for someone who would legalize these crimes against God and humanity, just to fit into his neat little paradigm of "states' rights."

I'm starting to think that people who vote for Ron Paul "on principle" are in reality choosing the principle of "states' rights" over the principles of morality.

Under the Constitution, the federal government has very limited law enforcement duties and powers. All other matters of law are the domain of the States and people. Under the Constitution, if California legalized the murder of unborn babies, that wouldn't mean the other States had to agree or that there would suddenly be a national court case trying to force abortion upon all States.

I understand all of this, John. Our country is messed up. The court system needs a major overhaul. But Ron Paul's solutions aren't the answer to our problems.

As to the politicians in the election now it's very difficult to perceive how anyone could think there would be any signifcant difference between a Newt, Mitt or Barak in the White House. All three are committed to the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government. All three would continue to grow and expand the federal government. All three are comitted to globalization.

I couldn't agree less. (Does this mean that you won't vote in the general election?) There are so many obvious differences between Obama's philosophies and the philosophies of any of the Repub candidates.

How many Republican presidents and Republican congresses do we have to go through, seeing the continuation of America going the wrong direction just as it does with Dems in control, before we realize they are all going the same way?

America is going to continue to go the wrong direction no matter who is President. The widespread legalization of narcotic drugs and prostitution ain't gonna help any.

In my own lifetime we can look from JFK to BHO and see America has steadily gotten worse, not better. Over these years we have had several Republican presidents, none of which stopped the unconstitutional aspects of the federal government nor did anything to restore the Constitution. In face, the federal government grew under each of them.

The answer to America's problems goes much, much deeper than states' rights, or how we are or are not following the Constitution. (I would think you'd know that.)

So, after Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush One and Bush Two, we see America worse now than before. Twenty-eight years of Republican presidents and America still got worse.

Like I said, America's problems are spiritual, not political. No politician--not Mitt, Newt, Ron, or Rick--has the power to turn America from her headlong rush toward disaster. The Constitution simply is not the answer to all of our woes. We are so very far beyond that. Edited February 7, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

I will vote for whoever wins the Republican primary against Obama, because at that point he will be the best man standing. Until then, I'll vote for who is the best man standing today and that man is Ron Paul.

Annie, saying that Ron Paul supports the legalization of prostitution and pot, because he says we should follow the Constitution and let the states decide these things, would be the exact same thing as saying you support the murder of innocent unborn babies because you want the federal government to decide. It wouldn't be right to say that about you, and it wouldn't be right to say that about him. You are mischaracterizing him. He is not in favor of those things; he is in favor of following the Constitution.

If we followed the Constitution, the practice of abortion would be nearly stomped out in our country. States could choose what they wanted to do on the issue. Most people are against the practice, the scientific evidence is overwhelming and the pro-lifers have won the argument. The reason democratic politicians never mention what they believe on gun control or abortion anymore is because they know they've lost the argument. If we followed the Constitution, Roe V. Wade would literally dissolve; there would be no need to "over turn" it. It would be done, caput, and all of a sudden the decision would have to be made by the states, and millions of little Americans would be saved.

On the flip side, there might be some places where pot and prostitution would become legal - like Vegas and New Orleans! The way you describe it, it's as though it would be a wide sweeping thing. Many of the states already have laws on the books against these things, so in many cases nothing would change. It makes perfect sense that most states would keep these things as illegal because they understand the reason the Federal Government did - you allow these things into your state and it becomes a breeding ground for corruption and crime. No state wants that, they're going to keep it out.

But hey, who cares about the lives of millions of little babies, right? Let's just keep on electing useless liberal Republicans that won't do anything to save lives foreign and domestic! Foreign, as in senseless wars, and domestic, as in abortion. And what more, they'll grow the Federal Godverment to the point that it will have the power to tell us what we can and can't say is wrong, just like it already does in Canada! And because there will be so many Bible believers that will refuse to lay down their Bibles and quit preaching against homosexuality, the Federal Godverment will once against try to make pastors license their churches (remember Rolloff?)

Nah, that will never happen. Let's grow the government and find out! Who cares about freedom!

Edited February 7, 2012 by Rick Schworer

[Annie]

I will vote for whoever wins the Republican primary against Obama, because at that point he will be the best man standing. Until then, I'll vote for who is the best man standing today and that man is Ron Paul.

Annie, saying that Ron Paul supports the legalization of prostitution and pot, because he says we should follow the Constitution and let the states decide these things, would be the exact same thing as saying you support the murder of innocent unborn babies because you want the federal government to decide. It wouldn't be right to say that about you, and it wouldn't be right to say that about him. You are mischaracterizing him. He is not in favor of those things; he is in favor of following the Constitution.

If we followed the Constitution, the practice of abortion would be nearly stomped out in our country. States could choose what they wanted to do on the issue. Most people are against the practice, the scientific evidence is overwhelming and the pro-lifers have won the argument. The reason democratic politicians never mention what they believe on gun control or abortion anymore is because they know they've lost the argument. If we followed the Constitution, Roe V. Wade would literally dissolve; there would be no need to "over turn" it. It would be done, caput, and all of a sudden the decision would have to be made by the states, and millions of little Americans would be saved.

On the flip side, there might be some places where pot and prostitution would become legal - like Vegas and New Orleans! The way you describe it, it's as though it would be a wide sweeping thing. Many of the states already have laws on the books against these things, so in many cases nothing would change. It makes perfect sense that most states would keep these things as illegal because they understand the reason the Federal Government did - you allow these things into your state and it becomes a breeding ground for corruption and crime. No state wants that, they're going to keep it out.

But hey, who cares about the lives of millions of little babies, right? Let's just keep on electing useless liberal Republicans that won't do anything to save lives foreign and domestic! Foreign, as in senseless wars, and domestic, as in abortion. And what more, they'll grow the Federal Godverment to the point that it will have the power to tell us what we can and can't say is wrong, just like it already does in Canada! And because there will be so many Bible believers that will refuse to lay down their Bibles and quit preaching against homosexuality, the Federal Godverment will once against try to make pastors license their churches (remember Rolloff?)

Nah, that will never happen. Let's grow the government and find out! Who cares about freedom!

It's easy to say all of this, Rick. I don't buy it. (The fact that you've softened Paul's drug legalization to "pot" shows that your enamoredness (word?) with this man has gone too far. He is in favor of legalizing narcotic drugs: cocaine and heroin in particular.) And, I don't "want" the federal government to decide. I am saying that the problem goes far deeper than "who is deciding."

I don't believe that abortion would be stomped out in our country (just like drug abuse hasn't been stomped out simply because it is illegal***). People are selfish, and they do what feels good. This is not a problem with government or following the Constitution. It is a spiritual problem.

RP is not someone I'd ever vote for in a primary election. I don't like what he stands for, and any good ideas he does have he could never implement for so many reasons. I think it's a shame that the only thing RP will accomplish by this primary run is handing the nomination to Romney.

I will say this: if I didn't consider "electability" in my decision about who to vote for, I'd write in a candidate for sure, since none of the official ones reflect my values, principles, or opinions on policy.

***I am not going to take the time to explain why, having said this, I am against the legalization of drugs. I hope no one will take this remark out of context and impute meaning to it that I did not intend.


EDITED TO ADD: I am sensing that those who are voting RP have their minds made up on the issue. And my mind is equally made up not to vote for RP. IOW, we seem to be at an impasse: nothing any of us can say will cause those with the opposing view to change his/her mind. The original question of the thread had to do with voting for the lesser of two evils...So, I've decided not to waste any more of my (or Rick's or John's) time debating about RP, since we're all decided on what we think about him. If the thread gets back on topic, I might pop back in. Otherwise, I'll bow out. Thanks for the discussion, guys. Edited February 7, 2012 by Annie

[HappyChristian]

Rick, did you know that RPaul is supported by people in the Bilderbergers? A group he has claimed is out to control our money...and yet at least one of them has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of him. This one is supposedly in favor of limited government, but how can he be when he is in favor of controlling all of the money? Conundrum.

He wants to build law-free countries in the ocean...http://www.buzzfeed....-a-bilderberger

RPaul is also of the belief that Mossad was involved in 9/11...hmmm - sounds like something the Saudis promoted, no?

I think I've said this before, but I don't know that RPaul is truly running for himself...I think he may be paving the way for his son, Rand. At this point, I like Rand and could get behind him.

States' rights have been ignored to the point where people don't understand necessarily how they would work. Annie, abortion was not nearly as bad until the federal govt got involved. Making it legal across the board jumped up the total of murdered babies big time. However, if the Constitution were followed correctly, Roe v. Wade would be obsolete - thus putting the power into that hands of the people of each state. Yes, it is a moral issue. But it is an issue that has to be faced. And there needs to be laws about that just as there is about murder. Because that is what abortion is.

Because we have been led to believe for so long that the true power in this country lies in DC, people don't understand the power of nullification. States can nullilfy unconstitutional laws: abortion, obamacare, etc. If Congress acted and removed Roe v. Wade from being law (which SCOTUS has NO authority to declare, anyway), states could then get into the action. There have been states that have passed anti-abortion laws (PA and SD come to mind instantly) and the SCOTUS has declared them to be unconstitutional. I'm sorry, but lack of understanding of state authority stopped those states from letting the SCOTUS know THEY were the unconstitutional ones for mucking in state authority.

Prostitution and drugs can fall under the purview of the federal govt. But only in cases where there is trafficking from state to state, or if prostitutes/drugs are being brought into the country. Otherwise, the authority belongs to the states. And, truly, the idea that ceding authority back to the states could increase sin usage is not accurate. Look into prohibition. The federal govt overstepped its authority with prohibition (and that was also a moral issue...something the federal govt has no business dealing in UNLESS its a trafficking issue) and drinking increased. Big time. Prohibition was repealed, and several states have dry areas, plus they have age laws. Of course, kids who want to drink will find a way, no matter what the law says.

States' rights are very important to consider. Very. The federal govt has overreached itself, and Americans have allowed it - especially Christians. We do not have a theocracy, and we shouldn't want one...if the few (comparatively) Christians on this board can't agree on different aspects of scripture, do you really think any "Christian" congress and POTUS could? And please all the Christians in the country? Nah. And our founders knew that. That is the reason for the documents they gave us. And the reason for states' rights. But, Rick, I just can't get behind RPaul...(although I'd like to see him as Sec. Treasury)

[swathdiver]

I should add that although I've made it known that I'm voting for Gingrich, I am not blind to his many faults. As I've repeatedly stated, he has baggage just like the rest of the candidates. ...they all have glaring faults.

Ma'am, could you tell us what Rick Santorum's glaring faults are?

Would God have us vote for someone He describes as proud, knowing-nothing and a fool?

[Brother Rick]

But, Rick, I just can't get behind RPaul...(although I'd like to see him as Sec. Treasury)

I see where you're coming from, and I don't think the man is perfect. I'm glad he's of the mindset to let Israel do what Israel wants, but I wish he'd go further than that and still believe in sending them financial aid. "I will bless them that bless thee." I think his policy towards Israel is still better than the other guy's though.

I still stand by what I've said before, he's the best option out there right now. Edited February 7, 2012 by Rick Schworer

[Annie]

Ma'am, could you tell us what Rick Santorum's glaring faults are?

Would God have us vote for someone He describes as proud, knowing-nothing and a fool?

Swathdiver, I'm no expert on politics. My opinions are worth just what you're paying for them (as I've said before in this thread). That said, I'd answer your question like this. Rick Santorum has no glaring "personal" or character faults. His faults (as far as I can tell) seem to be that he would not be an effective leader because he lacks experience and would be in way over his head in Washington (and would never be able to implement any of his good ideas). He would, in short, get run over by the "big dogs" and would be a do-nothing President. In the relatively little I've seen/heard/read about him, I get the idea that he would be a weak leader. Now, is my perception accurate? Maybe; maybe not, but that is the general perception about Santorum, and because of this perception, he would not be electable against Obama. He looks like a schoolboy; the others are definitely "the adults in the room" compared to him. People (in the general election) IMO would not feel confident voting for Santorum. So, nominating Santorum would be handing the election over to the greater evil. (From what I can tell, his opinions on policy are along the same "party line" as most of the other Republicans.)
Again, I could be wrong.

[John81]

That you, a man who claims to be a Christian, would call the desire to stave off drug abuse, child neglect, prostitution (and everything else that goes along with these clearly anti-biblical, immoral and just plain wicked behaviors) a "preference" just blows my mind. It reveals a lot about where you're coming from (and makes me a whole lot less likely to listen to your views on this subject).


This statement is meaningless to me. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify? (What level? What things?)


Did I say that following the Constitution is a wicked thing? The ease with which you attempt to spin what I've said makes me wonder if you should be running for President!


What? You cannot be serious, John. The definition of marriage has been left up to each state. It has nothing to do with the federal government. The reason that there is a national effort has nothing to do with the federal government. It has more to do with the courts' abuse of power, combined with the widespread use of technology (resulting in a whole lot more "bandwagons") which are different problems altogether.

The problem is not whether the federal government or the state government decides that same-sex marriage is OK...It's that ANYONE is deciding that it's OK. It's not a political problem; it's a spiritual problem. America's being eaten by cancer, and it makes little difference whether the feds or the states are the carcinogen.

Look, I was born in 1973--in Missouri--the date and place where Roe v. Wade was decided. It made little difference to the babies who would have been in my graduating class whether the state of Missouri or the federal government made the decision that their lives were expendable. The point is that NO ONE should be able to decide that; it shouldn't even be an issue that comes up for debate. Abortion, along with prostitution and drug abuse, is a moral issue. I could NEVER vote for someone who would legalize these crimes against God and humanity, just to fit into his neat little paradigm of "states' rights."

I'm starting to think that people who vote for Ron Paul "on principle" are in reality choosing the principle of "states' rights" over the principles of morality.


I understand all of this, John. Our country is messed up. The court system needs a major overhaul. But Ron Paul's solutions aren't the answer to our problems.


I couldn't agree less. (Does this mean that you won't vote in the general election?) There are so many obvious differences between Obama's philosophies and the philosophies of any of the Repub candidates.


America is going to continue to go the wrong direction no matter who is President. The widespread legalization of narcotic drugs and prostitution ain't gonna help any.


The answer to America's problems goes much, much deeper than states' rights, or how we are or are not following the Constitution. (I would think you'd know that.)


Like I said, America's problems are spiritual, not political. No politician--not Mitt, Newt, Ron, or Rick--has the power to turn America from her headlong rush toward disaster. The Constitution simply is not the answer to all of our woes. We are so very far beyond that.

As a Christian it's my duty to obey the Constittution. Those legal matters you raised are not matters for the federal government under our Constitution, they are matters for the States and people to address. Read the Constitution, the legal aspects under the jurisdiction of the federal government are very limited, all other legal matters are the domain of the States and people.

Why someone would question a persons Christianity because they believe the Constitution should be followed is beyond me.

If there are things someone believes the federal government should address that the Constitution gives no power to do so, there is an amendment process available. Subverting the Constitution in order to do what the is now allowed by the federal government is breaking the law.

No real point going over the rest of the post as it seems you either have no understanding as to the intended function of the Constitution and how the confederation of States was to operate or you are very unclear on the matter.

The fact is, with regards to matters such as abortion, prostitution and other legal matters, the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to make or enforce laws, either pro or con, in these areas. All such matters were left to be determined by the individual States.

If someone doesn't like that fact they could seek to pass an amendment changing this. All other means of bringing the federal government into the law making business, outside the bounds of the Constitution, is illegal.

We know government is wicked and we know that there will always be laws we don't agree with. This is one of the reasons the Founders wanted each State to retain their autonomy in such matters. Better to have Kansas and Oregon legalize abortion themselves than to have all fifty States forced to legalize abortion because the federal government demands it. Nevertheless, with the Constitution being subverted, we have forced abortion upon all fifty States.

Right now several States have laws on their books that would go into effect immediately banning abortion if this nation were restored to following the Constitution.

As Christians we are to work within the legal framework of the nation we reside, not take or promote illegal measures as a means to an end.