I usually stay off the topics of politics and religion on this blog as I prefer to direct people to my other blog and even then I'm usually hesitant to say very much. I probably won't change that very much, because I realize that most who come to this blog want to see pictures of idyllic British scenes, or of my craft projects or our homeschool doings.
I've been considering, though, for a few years now, Charlotte Mason's admonishment to have the courage of one's opinions. And I've realized that I'm usually not very impressed with people who have no opinion (or seem to not be interested in, even if they haven't formed an opinion) about important issues. I think human life is a crucial issue and it's worth talking about.
So, if you don't want to read a political post, come back another day; as I said this blog will not be given over to political or religious posts.
Ready?
On a lot of email lists I'm on the topic has come up of "who are you voting for?" I'm not going to say who I am for or even if I am voting (or have voted, as I have to do absentee ballot).
First off, I'm not necessarily pro the McCain-Palin ticket. There are more than two choices, you know, and sometimes people are surprising in whom they choose.
However I myself cannot vote for someone who has spoken or voted several times *against* the Born Alive Infant protection acts which dictate that an infant born alive after an abortion attempt must be given medical help (and not suffocated, strangled, or left in a dirty linen closet etc).
http://www.jillstanek.com/Senate_Committee_Vote_32701.pdf (committe vote)
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf (transcript from when the bill came up in the Ill. Senate in 2001 - you have to scroll down to page 84 or so) - here Obama argues against the bill, and interestingly admits that giving such a newborn rights would mean that the fetus was a real person and would mean no abortions should take place)
(sorry, I'm tired of copying and pasting and giving you that last is a more concise way of doing things)
About the idea that a President not being able to change things like abortion laws, well, Bush did sign the federal Born-Alive infant protection act (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020805-6.html) I made a cake to celebrate that act. As President, Bush could have vetoed such a bill, but he supported it.
More importantly, the President selects SCOTUS justices who keep their position for life. I want someone who will put people in those jobs who respect human life.
As for being state issues, yes, such matters do belong in the state but sometimes they do find themselves in the federal arena (Roe v Wade for example), and at those times the SCOTUS justices are who decides what will be law, even in the state.
So I've said my piece.
