So, which time was he fooling us?

This is a tiny bit political. OK. Maybe another political rant. But it will all be over soon, right?

I've been out of cyber land for a little while, but I wanted to write a few more thoughts and clarifications on what I wrote HERE about the Obama/McCain saga.

But first, I want to thank everyone who emailed me regarding that post. Whether you agreed with me, or not---Every ones' opinion makes me think a little bit harder. I appreciate good adult discussion about these issues when sometimes it all seems so many shades of grey with no clean cut answers--I need these discussions to formulate my clearest thoughts.

Please stick with me till the end of this post. I promise to make it worth your time.

Some very good points were brought up to me. One is that I am making the mistake of focusing on one issue when there is a whole spectrum to look at when considering candidates. I completely agree that we need to look at all the issues, and I assure you that Obama's view on abortion is not the only thing I disagree with him on. While moral issues do hold more weight for me when choosing a candidate, I know that there are many factors that will greatly affect our country in the next 4 years. His clear, then unclear stance on the abortion issue however, is indicative of how I have seen deception and pandering to get the conservative vote.

When I said I did consider Obama, I meant it. That was not a trite saying. Roger can tell you, I was not a fan of McCain during the Primaries, and even said a few times I was thinking that if Romney didn't win the Republican ticket, I would consider researching a vote for Obama (GASP!). So my decision really has been made according to reading I've done for myself. Not to say that anyone who votes for Obama has not done their research, I'm just saying I have not taken this lightly.

I DO agree with Obama on a few important issues like Immigration and...err...Immigration. Ok. So I don't agree on so much with him. But when I first laid eyes on him, and heard his charismatic speeches, I got all warm and fuzzy inside. Didn't you? But alas, there is more to this country than Immigration.

The next very good point that was brought to my attention is that I may have misrepresented Obama's stance on partial birth abortion.

Obama's official partial birth abortion statement

(as stated in the NY Times link)

Supports a ban on the medical procedure critics call partial-birth abortion only if it allows exceptions to protect the mother’s health. Criticized a Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on such procedures:
"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient."— Obama Statement, April 18, 2007

Now, this is Obama's official stance. True, I did not portray this in my last political rant. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt and explore this a bit.

So I ask myself the question---"If my life were in danger, is this a procedure I would consider (partial birth abortion)?". We should all ask ourselves this question. Not in order to judge another, but to understand those who might be faced with this decision.

In order to fully understand, I need to know, "Under what circumstances would my life be threatened in a pregnancy that partial birth abortion would change the outcome?". I know that tubal pregnancies and some severe diabetic pregnancies must be ended to protect the mother's life. Rape is another instance that could warrant a health concern for the mother--especially incest. But these are most often done early in the pregnancy. Is a pregnancy in the 20th-40th week similar?

Nevermind my answer. I went searching to understand.

What I found is that yes, there is one such circumstance in which the baby's head becomes enlarged with hydrocephalus (water on the brain). A normal delivery could cause the mother to be unable to carry a child again.

This would be a very difficult position to be in. One that I am thankful I have not had to face.

HOWEVER,

there is another alternative to killing the child while partially birthed.

A cesarean section could be performed. As well as a few other procedures.

Yes, it would mean a longer recovery for the woman.

Yes, the baby may still not live longer than a few moments, maybe a few minutes or hours.

But is it our place to play God and decide that because the life of a human is short, that it is not to be respected?

Not to be regarded as sacred and worthwhile?

And THAT, my friends is where this debate lies. Not in saving the Mother's life, because there are other alternatives (plural).

On the Supreme Court case regarding the procedure the American Medical Association official testimony stated:

"...the partial delivery of a living fetus for the purpose of killing it outside the womb is ethically offensive to most Americans and physicians. Our panel could not find any identified circumstance in which the procedure was the only safe and effective abortion method."

So the real debate comes in asking, What sacrifice must a woman make physically & emotionally to respect a life that God created? Again, if you are pro choice, that question means absolutely nothing. But think about it. What is the worth of a human life?

I read on to further understand the statistics.

entire NPR article

"In a widely-publicized interview with The New York Times in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated that in the majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother and healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along in development".

This statistic scares me because no matter how much anyone tells you that these graphic partial birth abortions only account for .2 percent of all abortions, it doesn't matter. With 1.3 million abortions taking place each year, that .2 percent accounts for 2,200 partial birth abortions every year.

Let me say that again.

2,200 Partial Birth Abortions

Every. YEAR.

So when the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers estimates that a majority of those are performed on healthy mothers and babies, I gotta say...

WHAT IS GOING ON?

To me this just sounds like buyers remorse. Why wait till over halfway through a pregnancy? At this point I begin to feel Obama is misleading the public into thinking that "women's health" is now in danger (and it's conservatives who are to blame.) It never was.

I will stick to what I've previously stated. All arguments in favor of abortion in the case of rape or health issues need to be sidelined until abortion is only allowed in those instances.

Back to Barack

Here's the last sticking point for me--(Aside from the fact that I disagree with Obama on much of his public policy)--

I don't trust what he says.

He claims that in the Illinois Senate he voted against the ban on late term abortions because it "didn't contain a clause to protect the life of the mother". That sounds all fine and good, except that it DID include the clause. Here is the exact wording:

Click for Document SB0230 link

Creates the Partial-birth Abortion Ban Act. Prohibits partial-birth abortions unless necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose. Makes performance of a partial-birth abortion a Class 4 felony. Provides for a civil action by the father and maternal grandparents of the fetus. Prohibits prosecution of a woman on whom a partial-birth abortion is performed. Effective 60 days after becoming law.

So, what does Obama take the American Public for? Are we stupid?

Maybe just too busy to do the research.