¹⁶And they [the Israelites] forsook all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made for themselves molten images of two calves; and they made an Asherah, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served Baal.
¹⁷And they burned their sons and their daughters as offerings, and used divination and sorcery, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
(2 Kgs. 17:16-17)

For years, the shadow of Roe v. Wade has hung over our nation. During that time, there have been many who rode the fence; people as I myself once was, who didn't like abortion because we personally believed it took a life, but didn't feel we should impose our beliefs on another woman. I long ago left that camp noting that I surely wouldn't split hairs about the right of someone else to define what was rape in their mind or stealing in their mind; how could I watch as the vulnerable women of this country redefined murder in order to satiate their consciences? I watched friends, convinced of the inconsequentiality of their decision while in a state of fear and desperation, return home to an empty womb and a growing realization in the aftermath of the far-reaching consequence of their choice. My heart went out to these girls who could not quite bring themselves to see their actions the same way in the following weeks as they had been able to in the moment. What had seemed a quick and easy solution became a long and painful contemplation. For one dear friend it became a trip to the hospital, hemorrhaging in the night while her boyfriend, my housemate, partied with his friends. She had told me she was doing it for him. Not long thereafter, she decided that women were her cup of tea. Who can blame her?

Watching the way these women, girls really, fooled themselves into believing they could handle this momentous decision, frightened me. What else might we convince ourselves of in a time of desperation; when would desperation cease to be necessary in a world inoculated against such painful choices? I found the answers were horrible.

In some countries, poor women are paid around 200 dollars to carry, and then abort fetuses through a late-term cesarean so that the fetuses can be sold to cosmetic companies for use in expensive youth-enhancing treatments. Elizabeth Bathory would be in hog heaven in this degraded world. Beyond the embryonic stem-cell issue, ethics questions are debated about whether or not one could clone a child then harvest its clone for parts to save the child. What is happening that such questions are even raised?

For years the pro-life/anti-abortion movement warned of a slippery slope that would lead to the devaluing of life once it was redefined. They said if a human being, at whatever stage of development, is not entitled to the protection of the law, then there would have to be a meritorious definition. Such as "Fetuses are not sentient so they are not people." The problem is, who says they are not sentient for one thing? For another, what of fully-grown adults who are not sentient, or rather are alleged to be non-sentient by doctors? I suppose Terry Schiavo answered that one for us. Peter Singer, of the Princeton Bio-Ethics Chair (irony if I've ever seen it) argues that a toddler is not sentient and it would be no crime for a parent to kill it if doing so improved the over-all happiness of the family. A family in Indiana who gave birth to a Down's Syndrome child allowed it to starve to death under hospital supervision rather than give it a common and simple surgery allowing it to eat. They missed the boat in aborting this baby, as do 90% of parents who are aware their child has DS prior to birth. This diagnosis comes in the late second to early third trimester of pregnancy, so these babies are routinely aborted during a time when they could conceivably live outside of the womb, separated from and no longer a burden to their mother. There is no doubt: The slippery slope has materialized and we are well on our way down it.

All of which brings me to the current Presidential race. The examples above are separate from most of us. The average American has never watched their imperfect infant starve to death in a quest for a better model. Now, however, for the first time in history we are given a choice to elect a man who has helped to grease the slope in a way that even NARAL didn't dare. The crusaders of NARAL, who object to parents being informed of even a ten-year-old's abortion; who object to the outlawing of just one particularly cruel procedure (requiring the dismemberment of a living fetus while it is stuck in the birth canal); who object to ultrasounds being given to women so they can truly see what it is they are destroying before they pony up the cash to destroy it; yes, even NARAL stood aside and remained silent in the face of the Federal Bill that would require a baby delivered alive as the result of an abortion receive life-saving measures as would any other human infant born prematurely.

One of the men we are offered as President takes abortion beyond even NARAL: Barack Obama.

He has claimed that he feared the Illinois bill that came to him as a state Senator would have granted rights to pre-born infants. He has said that if he were in the U.S. Senate he would have supported the Federal Bill because it contained language to avert this possibility while the state bill did not.

This is a lie.

While the first bill introduced in Illinois did not specifically contain language that ruled out the possibility of granting pre-born infants rights, the second bill did. Amendment 001 added the following language, identical to that in the Federal Bill: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." Being born alive is defined as having vital signs after delivery and complete separation from the mother. 

Barack Obama voted against this bill.

Barack Obama has stated with his vote that he believes women have not only the right to terminate a pregnancy, but to ensure the baby is dead. It is not enough to be rid of the burden, the infant must die. 

Could anyone who once believed Roe v. Wade was necessary to give women equality in control of their destiny have truly conceived that it would one day be used to justify the taking of a living, breathing infant, no longer dependent upon the woman for any reason and to lay that shivering child in a soiled utility room and allow it to die? If the women of this country have become so insulated to common humanity then I suppose Barack may win, but beyond his ludicrous idea that increasing the tax burden of businesses will suddenly inspire those greedy corporations to stay at home, pay more taxes, and hire more people; beyond his history of supporting the corrupt Chicago political machine; beyond the tax-payer dollars he earmarked to his wife's hospital which then gave her a six-figure raise; beyond his donation of millions to friends with no experience in housing to build what turned out to be heatless, sewage infested slums; beyond all of these, I have to believe in the women of this nation. I must believe that those of us, uniquely blessed with the ability to perpetuate life, even those who are pro-choice, are not yet pro-infanticide.

Sources:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

http://www.altonweb.com/cs/downsyndrome/index.htm?page=willkilling.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_SingerAbortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542448_2