A sad day for America...

[olde_fashioned]

While it seems the majority of the country is rejoicing our new president-elect, I cannot help but be saddened at the direction this country is taking. I am saddened that we have just elected an untried and inexperienced man and given him the reins of this country. I am saddened that we as a nation have allowed the politicians and the liberal media to effectively pull the wool over our eyes and project another flawed human being as a god-like figure. I am saddened that we have just elected a president who will sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act which will effectively sign the death warrants of an untold multitude of unborn children. I'm saddened that we have sent the most radical, the most liberal, and potentially the most anti-American person we've ever had run for president to the highest office in the land to take power in January. I am saddened that our politics have degraded and deteriorated to the point that I couldn't even find a decent Biblically-qualified Republican candidate to vote for without compromising half my values.

And most of all? I am saddened that most people are rejoicing at all of this.

Part of me feels like crying. :-(

Pray, people. Even if you don't live here, pray for America, pray for not only our country, but all those around the world that will be affected by our policies and our actions, pray that our enemies aren't tempted to test a new and inexperienced president, pray that none of our rights (especially our first and second ammendment rights) aren't trampled on or even eliminated, and pray that whatever wheels Obama sets into motion that they won't permanantly damage this country or the world. God is still in control no matter if the Democrats or the Republicans are in office, and He can still use people, even the likes of Obama.

"Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding."
~ Proverbs 3:5

What man intends for evil God often turns around and uses for good, so let's pray that this is another example. I don't understand why God let this happen, but He knows much better than me or anyone else, and if He can create all of the universe and everything in it, I think He can be trusted with an election.

The whole campaign everyone talked about Obama being an "inspiration" and about his bringing "new hope" to America in trouble times. Well guess what? Obama is only a man, a flawed, finite, tiny human being, and that's nothing, absolutely nothing compared to what God is. I don't trust polticians, I trust God. I don't put my hope in Obama, I put my hope in God.

"...put your hope in the LORD both now and forevermore."
~ Psalm 131:2-3

Obama promises hope and change, but God doesn't change. Politicians come and go, "but the word of our God stands forever." (Isaiah 40:8b)

So take that, Obama!

Comments

[maribarbola.livejournal.com]

As I told you the first time I ever posted a comment here, my political ideas are far away from yours in the spectrum, so, I supposse (and I do think that I supposse well) that you won't take it as a surprise if I tell you that I am one of those rejoicing because of the results of the elections (You only have to check my latest post in my journal to see it), so I'll tell you something: Don't feel sad for me, because, even though I'm not an American and I can't vote, I've been following this elections from the beginning, I supported Obama, and I'm really happy he was chosen by the Americans.

My father said something quite interesting while we had lunch: "Most has already been done. There will be a change in the USA. But that is something that McCain could have also done if he were elected". That means that the shadow of George Bush is still too long and has done a lot of harm to the republicans , something we were also discussing in class today.

Still, the republicans have four years to get rid of the shadow of Bush and find a man (or woman, who knows), experienced enough in politics, to lead the Republican Party, and, who knows, maybe the country.

Anyhow, now that you name the abortion thing. Don't kill me, but I'm pro-abortist. It's not my personal choice, because I think I wouldn't be able to endure that traumatic experience, and, as I told you before, I want to have a big family when I grow up. But in cases like those of a man raping a woman, and the woman ending pregnant... Well I do actually believe that abortion should be permitted, because, unless the woman has a strong spirit and decides to raise the child, giving him or her all her love, in most of the cases, the situation is traumatic for both the woman (who will see the child not as born of love, but of evil, and won't take care of him or her) and the child (Who will grow without the love and care of the mother, and may not be mentally stable because of that). Still, there is always the opportunity to give the child in adoption, but I do believe that, in cases like those, the woman should be given the right to choose.

But, anyway, this is my opinion, and I know it isn't the only one, so if anybody here got offended, my apologies because it wasn't my intention

[maribarbola.livejournal.com]

I'm saddened that we have sent the most radical, the most liberal, and potentially the most anti-American person we've ever had run for president to the highest office in the land to take power in January.

Well... If you see him as radical and liberal... I think you would have a heart attack if you saw the guys I vote for in the elections in my country. Still,everything depends on the point of view a person has...

[tree-spirits.livejournal.com]

From my understanding, the Freedom of Choice Act brings back partial birth abortions, or something to that effect. Now, whatever you (I mean this as a general 'you,' not YOU you) belive as far as abortion is concerned, if a woman gets so far ahead in the pregnancy that the baby is nearly ready to be born... that is wrong. Why not take the entire child out instead of only half, scramble up the brains/kill it, and then take the rest out? Also, there was some confusion as to what to do with an induced labor abortion that "failed," and the child was born. Born, born - the technical head is out of the mother birth. Obama voted in favor of leaving the babies to die from lack of care. THAT is unsettling.

[maribarbola.livejournal.com]

Ok, perhaps I talked without not knowing most about this law. I'm not pro-abortion in those cases. Even my mother, who showed her support for an abortion law here in my country when there was none, is against THAT form of abortion. Because, well... you've explained it better,why not take the entire child out if it is nearly ready to be born?. In those cases, even I believe it is a murder. Not when the fetus is at a very early stage(that means the first or the second month of pregnancy) and in cases like the one I talked about in my previous post.

[tree-spirits.livejournal.com]

I'm glad that we can agree on something. :)
I'm sorry to say that Barack Obama has said that the first thing he would do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. :/

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." -- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

[reconditarmonia.livejournal.com]

This is what frustrates me. I don't mind arguing with people who know what they're talking about, but so many people just don't know the facts!

1. "Partial-birth abortion" (not a medical term) was only performed, very late in pregnancy, because of health risks or birth defects to the fetus, or severe health risks to the mother that couldn't be solved by inducing labor. (Because imagine - if you've been pregnant for nine months, you'd obviously have had an abortion earlier if you don't want the child, so this is a very much wanted pregnancy and doctors and women both will try to keep the child. They will usually do a C-section, and both mother and baby will be healthy and happy. But this procedure was for things like anencephaly, which is being born without a brain. The infant wouldn't live no matter what, and an abortion would both spare it pain and have the potential to save the woman from health risks.)

2. Banning D&X (what you call "partial-birth abortion") won't actually reduce the number of late-term abortions. It just outlaws the safest possible procedure. In D&X, labor is partially induced, the skull of the fetus is collapsed etc, and the body is delivered whole so the parents can hold it and say goodbye. In the procedures that are still legal, the body is dismembered, and there is a greater risk of puncturing the uterus. No more saved "babies." Only more women wounded and made infertile.

3. Mr. Obama stated that he voted against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act because it lacked a clause that was later added, which prevented it from being used to limit abortion rights. Again, any abortion late enough in pregnancy to result in a hypothetically viable infant is being performed for severe health reasons where the infant will not live anyway, and the bill would have required doctors to provide "care" to these infants that, instead of saving their lives, would have dragged out their final hours in great pain. What's more, doctors already provide care to these babies without any laws making them - it's called palliative care, and is intended to make their inevitable deaths as painless as possible. The lies about infants being left to die in back rooms are just that, lies.

Hope this has helped!

[maribarbola.livejournal.com]

Indeed it does help.It is always useful to know the facts from "both sides of the fence", so one can always form his/her own opinion about it. I do supposse that if this law gets approved there will have to be a really strict control, because, as we say here "Done the law, done the trap" (sorry for the bad translation), it means that probably some women, and/or some clinics may want/try to practise abortions in perfectly healthy pregnancies that are almost to reach birth.

I do mention this possibility, because there was a big scandal here concerning a clinic that did practise abortions to woman in a really advanced pregnancy status, and that opened a big debate here. I do believe that women have the right to choose what to do, but not being so irresponsible to letting a perfectly healthy pregnancy go, and then at the last moment decide to abort. Because it is indeed too risky for their healths, and because the baby is almost formed. But if it is a risk for the mother's health and nothing can be done for the baby... then I do believe (I know I repeat myself too many times, but bear with me, English is my second language and therefore I'm not really good at finding synonyms) it is the right thing to do.

AS I always state, this is my opinion, but I don't mind to agree to disagree with people, if they are consecuent with their ideologies, and I do expect to be treated in the same way.

[reconditarmonia.livejournal.com]

I don't think the strict control could be a law or an amendment to the law, though. Lawmakers don't know about medical stuff. The best person to decide if something is a severe enough health risk to warrant a late-term abortion is a specialist doctor.

What were the circumstances of that case? I know that in the United States a lot more pregnancies are aborted in the second trimester than should be, because there are stupid restrictions that prevent women from being able to abort as early as they'd like.

Again, there's no logical reason to abort a hypothetically viable fetus unless there is a medical problem. It's a waste of resources and it's fully as harmful to the woman as, or more so than, delivery.

(Haha, don't worry about it. English is my first language, and I still blank out on English words when I've been reading/writing in Italian or French for a couple of hours.)

I don't mind, either - in fact, I like arguing. :) It's just when others' positions aren't logically consistent that I get frustrated.