Get out the novocaine - it's election time

Without further ado, here it is: my first political post. I am extremely hesitant about bringing politics into this blog, because there are so many things that are more important to me than a person's political beliefs or affiliations, and I don't want anyone to close their ears to what I have to say just because we disagree on politics. But the election is only a week away, and I find myself compelled to write this post. I will do my utmost to keep my statements simple, civil and friendly.

I am not a huge supporter of either of the two big presidential candidates. I do, however, have great respect, admiration, and (perhaps most importantly) trust for Sarah Palin. Senator McCain's choice of Sarah as VP secured my vote, despite my many disagreements with the Senator's policies. In her personal life and as governor of Alaska, she has demonstrated good judgment, a strong spine, and tremendous respect for the sanctity of individual life. I can relate to her in a way I've never been able to relate to a politician, man or woman. So that's what I have on the positive side.

Now here is why I cannot vote for Senator Obama, and there is one reason that trumps all other considerations. I won't need to go into his economic plan, foreign policy, or social values, because they don't matter in comparison. I could agree with him on all other points and still not be able to vote for him. The reason is simple: it is clear from his actions and words that he does not value the sanctity of life. I was first troubled along these lines when he uttered the (in)famous statement that he would not want his daughters "punished" with a baby if they were to make a mistake. Yet I will not judge someone based on a single statement, which can be so easily taken out of context or may represent poor communication of an idea. So I kept listening and watching.

When I read about his statements on the floor of the Illinois senate, I was even more troubled. SB1095 stated that a baby alive after “complete expulsion or extraction from its mother” would be considered a "person, human being, child and individual." In other words, it would be not only wrong but illegal to leave such an entity in a linen closet until it finished dying. Here is what Senator Obama had to say about the bill (March 31, 2001):

"...whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a—a child, a nine-month-old—child that was delivered to term.”

In other words, a delivered 22-week term child would have the same rights as a full 40-week term child.

“I mean, it—it would essentially bar abortions,” said Obama, “because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.”

This statement unambiguously demonstrates that Senator Obama is willing to ignore the moral logic of any bill that might oppose abortion statutes. It doesn't matter to him whether or not a baby surviving an abortion deserves the rights due any person, accorded by our Constitution. What matters to him is whether or not the right to "choice" is violated by such a baby's right to life. Or, from another angle, he didn't care whether or not "this" is a child, because if it was an antiabortion statute he wouldn't vote for it.

One commentator summed this up elegantly:

For Senator Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a “person” entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother’s uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her.

I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who holds such a blatant disregard for human life.

Okay, that's all for politics. We'll be returning to my regular blog shortly...