This was written in response to some of the reactions I got to the first piece when posted on facebook, so there may be some sentences that don't quite make sense without the context:

First, let me address the most electric of Nick's assertions- that by my standards, George W. Bush is a good president. It's an effective flourish, but upon a closer look, you will find that my argument is not a simple "if, then" logic equation. The respect for human life and dignity is not the defining characteristic of a good presidency. It is the most basic prerequisite for having the capacity to lead a nation. Many other factors, which have been frequently discussed throughout these elections, are considered after this when judging the success of a presidency. Respect for life does not have the ability to make a presidency successful, but a lack of it is an inherent betrayal to the position.
By my standards, the denial of habeas corpus in Guantanamo, inaction on the environmental crisis, and the embarkment of a pre-empitve war on false premises are just a few of the reasons why I would not classify Bush as a good president. I am not writing this to bash Bush, though- many others have taken care of that for me. My point is that Bush had the propensity to be a good leader and subsequently failed. He did not fail in all regards, and I am very grateful for the pro-life strides that were taken under his guidance and will continue to be taken by his court appointees. But, on far too many other important issues he did fail. I would like to say that he is not alone in holding responsibility for these failures, nor are those who voted for him. I also hold the entire Democratic party responsible for Bush's inadequacies, because they failed then, as they fail now, to put forward a candidate who met the basic prerequisite of a leader- a respect for the lives of those they lead.
The true tragedy is that respect for human life has become so rare that it must be a defining issue. In an ideal world, I could focus on the economic plans being put forth by the candidates, like so many Americans. Out of this fine country, is it really possible that the best we can put forward is a smooth-talking radical and a compromised shell of a man who once fought against the tide? I refuse to believe that it is. But, they are all we have to work with this time. In the lack of a pro-life president whose other ambitions I share, I have no choice but to support the one candidate whose position on this issue demonstrates a greater degree of moral fiber and hope, no, pray, that he will lead well from there.
On the other assertion, that legalizing abortion actually reduces the number of abortions (and, some people add, deaths from home-made abortions), I believe that there is enough evidence to refute the truth in this, as is discussed in that Newsweek article I posted. However, I am going to put forth what will probably be an unpopular argument that whether or not this is true does not change the fact that legalized abortion should not be tolerated by humanity. Laws exist not only to provide the necessary letters to govern but also to define a society, to define what a society will, and will not, tolerate. Some people might argue that laws should not be based upon a particular religion's precepts. I agree that freedom or religion is of the utmost importance. However, all laws are based off the concept that there is such a thing as "right" and "wrong", which inherently implies a governing moral order. In our society, in particular, "equality for all" was an explicit governance and one of the most precious inheritances we Americans have. Which laws we uphold and which we abandon, regardless of their immediate consequences, defines the legacy that we leave to future generations.
Let me also add that religious freedom is at stake in this particular election. When Barack Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act, he supports eliminating the rights of Christian doctors to abstain from participating in abortive procedures. He also supports federal funding for abortions, which means that every tax-paying Christian is financially complicit in abortions. With the economy where it is and the extra burden that universally paying for abortions would cost the tax-payer, I sincerely doubt that much money will flow towards crisis pregnancy centers, which actually do reduce the numbers of abortions.
Since I used the comparison to slavery last time, let me use it again. The argument that legalizing abortions reduces the actual number of abortions is eerily familiar to me from the justifications used to perpetuate slavery. Abolishing the abhorrent practice of slavery did have some immediate negative consequences as slavery supporters had warned- society was not yet set up to offer equal opportunities to freed slaves, the consequences of which are still being felt. However, who today would deny that regardless of repercussion our country could not afford to perpetuate this trampling of human rights?
It is only by warped intellect that we have come to convince ourselves that murder of the innocents is an acceptable way to purchase freedom, just as it was by warped intellect that our forefathers came to convince themselves that forced servitude was an acceptable way to purchase their own comfort. Our country cannot afford leaders who are willfully blind to this suppression of rights. Neither can it afford its conscientious voters to shrug this issue off.