Thursday, October 23, 2008

I've been waivering

So I've been going a little crazy with the posts... but when you've got stuff to say...

I, like much of America, have been debating on which candidate I think best represents what I want from the President. Both have their +'s and -'s. But I read an article that I think everyone needs to read. I know there's only like 11 days until the election, but I'm glad I found this out now, not later. I now have my choice easily and clearly decided. No more indecision.

My decision maker.

I should warn you: this article has some insanely grotesque stuff. If you want to know the truth, you should read anyway.

8 comments:

ixoj said...

But the real question is this: is abortion an important enough issue to be the deciding factor in who is going to become president? I personally feel that there are many way way more important issues out there...like the economy. Or the war. Or basic foreign policy. Or health car. Or almost anything else. But that's just me.

e said...

Wow. That's very moving. That's all I was going to say . . . until I read the above comment.

There may be more "important" issues than abortion (if you want to claim such things), but even if that is true, all important issues and subsequent decisions should be made by someone who is morally sound. So, even if abortion isn't "important", I personally want a leader who's content of character I can trust to handle issues -- important or insignificant.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ixoj's comment and I think Emilee has made an important next step in the line of reasoning. Here's an interesting little bill that Obama has promised to pass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Choice_Act

Unknown said...

It disturbs me that he is willing to allow living, breathing children to be killed/destroyed, simply because he doesn't wish to put Any limitations on a woman's right to choose what she does. Apparently this isn't even a 'what she does with her own body' question.

There are issues that will certainly have a bigger direct influence on the U.S., but how he chose/chooses to treat living beings leaves me no choice.

If he's willing to let living, out of the womb, children die, do you think he's going to worry a whole lot about you?

ixoj said...

Yes, I do think he would worry about me, because in his mind, I'm a real person. I definitely don't agree with abortion, but people who support it don't feel like abortion is murder because they simply have a different definition of when a person is a person. For some it's only when the fetus is born at full term. For others its when an egg is fertilized in the uterus, regardless of whether or not it implants...which brings up the whole issue of various forms of contraception...

Unknown said...

That's definitely a valid point... though I've never heard of Anyone claiming that a human fetus, outside of the womb and breathing on its own, isn't a real person... until I read this article.

Again, valid point - I just refuse to vote for someone who's opinion on the matter is so far departed from my own. And as the article points out, the mental jump from killing pre-term but viable fetuses to, say, a two year old, really isn't that far.

Not that my vote will matter anyway - but at least I know how I feel about it going into the election.

Unknown said...

I suppose the real question is: could I vote for someone who considers Infanticide a lesser priority than a Woman's ability to make abortion decisions.

For me: No way. For others: probably.

Anonymous said...

That just sounds like it's a little too close to this for my taste.