I like this - you're very even-headed here and that is rare for to see, especially when it comes to politics.

Personally, I will be voting for Obama. A friend of mine is voting for McCain and so we have many exchanges, one of which is, of course, abortion. I told my friend, "If abortion were the only issue on the table, I would vote for McCain".

Obama's abortion record is one of the things I don't like about him. But, in my opinion, it is not worth not voting for him. In fact, given the very limited power that the President has over abortion-related issues, it simply fades into the background amidst the very other persistent issues on the table, which the President does have power over.

But, like I said, I liked your article and the apparent objectivity.

I agree with much of what Doug Kmiec says. Abortion is indeed an issue with many systemic causes that we can and should address. But so is murder, theft, rape, and a vast number of other immoral actions that we still expressly forbid through legislation. There are a lot of things we should do to help single mothers, make fathers more accountable, improve the economy, etc... and this will have positive effects on a whole host of issues (crime, poverty, abortion, etc). But all of this doesn't change the fact that abortion is a dreadful thing that should be limited and prohibited wherever possible.
It is clear that Obama is compassionate about the mothers out there, and the poor families that have to deal with unwanted pregnancies. But if he were consistent in this compassion, he would also care about the babies themselves. It is wrong to ignore the impoverished, to not come to the aid of the widows and unwed mothers, but in my view it is much worse to be complicit in the killing of developing human beings. Is there more value in a human life that has existed for 21 years than one that has existed for 21 days? I have a hard time making that argument. And that argument is essential in rationalizing abortion.
Plus, how can we say that improving the quality of life (i.e. decreasing poverty, etc) is in any way of equal importance than protecting the very existence of it? Yes, I want to decrease poverty, make people healthier, make families stronger, but before people can be any of that, they first must be alive. Before we can make society more livable, we have to start by affirming life at the very outset; if life is so unimportant to us that we do not stand in the way of the legal ending of it, what hope is there for making the quality of life any better?

Well written, well thought out. And I find myself regrettably coming to the same conclusion. I think abortion may be a "make it or break it" issue for me.

I went to the Art Music Justice Tour on Sunday...this tour features Sara Groves, Charlie Peacock, Derek Webb, Sandra McCracken (are you related, Brett?) and Brandon Heath and brings awareness to the plight of the over 200 million people held in slavery right now throughout the world.

I had never heard Derek Webb's music before that night, and I was impressed with his set. But what he SAID has stayed with me all week. He stated that it's never a good idea to do something contrary to your conscience. He went on to say that for some people, voting for either candidate in this election was causing them to vote against their convictions. In other words, it may be best not to vote at all. He went on to say that in our efforts to help the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized, there are other ways to accomplish that besides what we can do legislatively. Yes, there certainly are.

For the first time since I became a registered voter when I was 18, I may not vote. And please understand, I do not now nor have I ever taken lightly the privilege I have as an American citizen to vote. Not voting is a difficult thing to embrace.

My prayer has been that God will guide me on Nov. 4 as I make a decision. I also pray that I will see more clearly the ways I can do kingdom work that will have impact on a dark and dying world.

Brett, thanks for a well written and well thought out blog. I applaud your decision to forego your preference in order to stand on your conviction.

There are a couple of points I'd like to make regarding this topic. First, it is important not to underestimate the effect the next president definitely will have on the abortion issue, especially if it is Obama.

The real decision-making power lies with the Supreme Court justices, and as Bush was able to get two conservative (read: pro-life) judges seated during his presidency, Roberts and Alito, one can argue that he did accomplish something important in advancing the pro-life cause.

On the liberal (read: pro-choice) side of the court, considering that Justice Stevens was born in 1920, and Justice Ginsberg was born in 1933, I wouldn't be surprised if they both retire on Day Two of an Obama presidency. Obviously, they will be replaced by new pro-choice judges, and with years of birth being 1939, 1938, and 1936 for the remaining liberal judges AND swing judge Kennedy... Can you see where we are headed? If the majority shifts to pro-choice you will probably never see the end of Roe v. Wade for several decades, perhaps never in your lifetime.

My second point pertains to how Obama "seems genuinely passionate about helping downtrodden people" (which I agree with), and I think "seems" is the key word here. Assuming that many of the people reading ConversantLife are both socially concerned and Christians, I am going to appeal to you on these two fronts.

I have a big problem with people who talk about how we need to be generous and help others, but only in terms of getting other people to do the actual work and give the actual money. We Christians who donate to our churches and to human causes and go to foreign countries to do dirty, difficult work are living this out, and have every right to call others to do the same.

But Obama? Have you seen his 7-year charitable giving record? In summary, he and his wife gave less than $4,000 a year - seemingly until he decided to run for president (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html). Like many a liberal I've met in my life, he's really big on spending money on the poor, just as long as it's someone else's money (I'm sorry, but in my personal experience, "liberals" are the biggest tax-evaders/avoiders of anyone I know.). He doesn't even financially support his own Kenyan relatives!

In contrast, the most amazing, honorable, and unheralded person in all this mess is Cindy McCain. People love to hate a beautiful, rich girl, but if you look at biblical standards this woman lives the faith in the way we claim we want to see. Matthew 6:2-4: "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets...But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret." Mrs. McCain doesn't just throw her money out there; she travels to the dark corners of the earth to make sure that when she gives money to a cause, it's going to make something happen. You may not have heard about it, because she doesn't make noise about her endeavors, but in my mind, she's the one who illustrates true passion for the downtrodden (just one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMCHC3LA9Y8).

And John McCain? In 2007, he contributed 26 percent of his total income to charity.

So voters, who is really noble? The one who sounds generous by talking about how generous he is going to make other "rich people" be with their tax money, or the one who, along with his wife, has demonstrated personal generosity? Talk is just not enough for me.