Yes, yes, I agree with all my siblings. (well...not sure on David's thoughts quite yet...which seem to be the first page of a manifesto)

But also, I would vote pro-life. I know the response must be varied, must be filled with love, Adrienne, I loved your blog post. I agree, I agree, and politics are stupid and ugly often, and this election especially is ugly and disheartening. I am saying we should do more, more, more, yes.

But I am also saying that we should not do less than vote for a candidate who is likely to put judges on the Supreme Court who, if not overturning Roe V. Wade, may allow states to ban abortion, or create stricter laws on parental consent, etc. I am saying yes, the election is multi-faceted. But that I think that our morals should demand (if we believe that abortion does indeed end life) that we vote for the presidential candidate most likely to have a real effect on abortion. Obama's rhetoric is the deceptive rhetoric, because it paints him as moderate on the issue when in fact he is the most radical.

Also, he will immediately reinstate overseas funding for abortion. When Obama becomes president, the money you pay in taxes will go to help women get abortions! He is against crisis pregnancy centers! He is for late-term abortion. And he will almost certainly put a new justice on the Supreme Court. Stephens is 88. Ginsberg is 74. Scalia is in his 70s.

So while I'm saying we should certainly, certainly do more in this issue, and that the church should certainly modify its approach from a purely political approach that alienates moderates and casts women who choose abortion as villains...we should not do less than vote for the candidate who is most likely to reduce the incidence of abortion.