I Guess I'm Allowed to Blog about Political Stuff, Right?

What is it, 60 days till the election? I'm still one of those registered, undecided voters who both campaigns are spending millions of dollars and working themselves into frenzies to win over.

I used to make my decisions based solely on the issue of abortion, which was the only one I was certain about. But it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to vote even based on that singular issue. According to my calculations, we have had republican presidents in the white house for 24 of the 35 years since Roe V. Wade was instated, and it has remained in tact. And while I am entirely opposed to Roe V. Wade, I am compelled by the potential of the democratic platform to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and provide more support for mothers who chose to keep their babies.

I have one comment and one concern, and then I'll shut up (for now):

Comment: I think both sides of the argument need to be more fair when arguing. Pro-lifers are not driven by a perverse desire to inflict suffering on poor, single women or victims of rape and incest. By that same token, I don't believe that pro-choice advocates are go-lucky murderers, content to know that fully born babies of unwilling-to-be-inconvenienced-parents are being left to die in utility rooms. I don't believe that Barack Obama is a go-lucky murderer who is content to know that fully born babies are being left to die in utility rooms*. I do think that he strongly wants to protect Roe V. Wade, and I strongly disagree with him.

*http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/08/19/fact_check_born_alive_1.php

Concern: I believe that our abortion-rights law reveals the poor moral state that our country is in. But the reality is that without Jesus, people are without hope. Women are going to have abortions whether they are legal or not, or women are going to continue having babies who they didn't want and won't adequately care for. I believe in the right to live; I also believe that babies have the right to be fed, loved, and parented. I admire John McCain for his pro-life voting record. But I'm confused as to why republicans (including John McCain*) continually vote against safe-practice and teen-pregnancy education.

*http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

Abstinence is an obedient response to God and his Word, but it doesn't seem practical to base our national policies on that conviction. My public high school had an "abstinence only" approach to education; we also had a "Student Parents" club with over 20 members in my senior year - and those were just the teen parents who had decided not have an abortion, and who had also decided to join the club. Abstinence is the only sure-fire way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but I don't think that abstinence-only education works in lowering the rate in unwanted pregnancies. Liberals seem to be the leaders in providing education and resources to lower the rate of unwanted pregnancies. Also, they are more willing to put money into programs (welfare, health care services, etc.) that could support a woman in choosing to keep her baby.

Overturning Roe V. Wade is only one of the ways to improve the situation at hand, and the least likely to be accomplished. Thus: I want a candidate who believes abortion is wrong, who will talk about it fairly, who will lead the way in providing education and resources to lower rates of unwanted pregnancies, who will improve programs designed to assist women in difficult financial situations, who will simplify adoption processes, and who will appoint a pro-life supreme court justice.

And while I'm naming my terms, I would also like this candidate to have a platform that favors the poor, the religiously persecuted internationally, sex slaves, and the environment. Solid plans to tackle the energy crisis and the national debt would also be appreciated, as both ENERGY CRISIS and NATIONAL DEBT sound very big and bad. And don't get me started on the WAR, because I have no idea where to start, and I don't think anyone knows where to end.