Few regular readers of Second Sight would have qualified to vote in the US presidential election, but my wife and I had a discussion on what we would have done.
The attractions of Obama are obvious, although a great popular landslide vote all too often ends in tears. But our main problem with Obama is that he actively supports both part-birth abortion and live-birth abortion. I am afraid that the next two paragraphs are not for the squeamish.
Part-birth abortion is a procedure whereby the baby is partially extracted by the legs, having been manipulated into breach position. While the head is still inside, the brains are literally sucked out, decreasing the size of the skull so that it can pass out easily. Dead, of course.
Live-birth abortion is just that. The baby is induced, born, and, by law, given a birth certificate. Ironically facilities for baptism are sometimes provided. But the baby must then be left to languish until it dies. This can take up to eight hours. And, to keep things trim, a death certificate must be provided. Oddly it seems that the baby is regarded both as a citizen and a condemned “product of abortion” at the same time. If that isn’t playing both ends against the middle, I’d like to know what is.
In our view, leaving aside “life” questions, we thought that Obama had the better platform. We don’t care for McCain for a number of reasons – Guantanamo Bay and state-sponsored torture being among them. But we remembered a certain country with a politician who had done much to benefit national pride and economic prospects. But he also singled out a category of human beings for removal and extermination. Would we have voted for him?
We decided that, were we US voters, we would have had to abstain. But what would you have done?