Here’s the dilemma…what happens when no one completely embodies your political views? I would guess that’s where the majority of people find themselves. You have to make a decision as to what issues are most important. Some people would want to put all issues on a level playing field. I think that is naive. Neither the issues themselves nor their implications can be viewed in this way.

This is a deciding factor for me. The results of abortion are not the same as the results of global warming. Should we take care of our planet? Yes. If I had to choose between a pro-life candidate with an opposing view on global warming and a pro-choice candidate with a positive view on global warming and taking care of the earth, I choose the pro-life candidate. Global warming (debated) doesn’t necessarily lead to the loss of life, at least directly. Abortion does. So for me, abortion and the death penalty are preeminent issues. And with abortion, we are talking about the rights of the defenseless. They can’t stand up for themselves.

I can hold out hope that a candidate will emerge someday who holds all of my views. I am not optimistic. I agree it is not a theocracy and we shouldn’t expect it to be. But we do have the ability to influence culture by the way we vote.

Even though the law of the land is that I could have an abortion, I choose not to because the Lord directs my life. That is the crux of this abortion issue; not if abortion is legal, but what people choose to do with that law. So, when it comes to a president of this country, I vote on economic issues. Now, that doesn’t mean I throw any moral characteristics of the candidate out of consideration. Instead, I vote on a mixture of morals and economics.