My Vote

It is finally November: the issues have all been debated, the fingers pointed, and many early votes cast. The United States is collectively holding its breath to discover the nation’s next president. As a junior in high school, I cannot legally vote to determine who holds the highest office in our country. But given the opportunity, I would unhesitatingly vote for Mitt Romney to be our next president. An important part of President Obama’s platform is protecting the legality of abortion, whereas Mitt Romney’s opinions are exactly opposite. It is this issue alone that will determine my vote, because I hold the sanctity of human life above other issues. Getting our economy back on track is extremely important and will affect millions of Americans. Bringing soldiers home and negotiating with foreign countries is imperative to our success as a free nation. Ending our dependence on oil and investing in discovery of new energy resources is understandably important. But none of these topics could sway me to vote for a man who believes in protecting a woman’s right to abort her child.

            President Barack Obama believes that women have a right to choose.  The right to choose what? Life or death for their baby. Well, you might say, it’s not a baby. It’s a fetus, a clump of cells. However, I believe that life begins at the moment of conception, when 23 chromosomes from each parent combine to form a totally unique genetic combination. The child’s genes contain information that will guide growth and development for the rest of her life, and it is also a completely separate code from that of her mother. And if a baby is just part of a mother, and therefore under her control, then, in the words of Peter Kreeft, every pregnant women has four eyes and four feet. That sounds as about ridiculous as it is. Another common argument is that the fetus cannot survive on its own, and is therefore not human. However, the same principle could be applied to young toddlers, aging seniors, or anyone that is in need of serious medical attention—are they not human, then? It is amazing how many justifications for abortion, when applied on a larger scale, simply do not make sense.

            Many pro-choice advocates, President Obama included, feel that abortion is a solution to unplanned pregnancies, rape, and incest. I believe that the baby should never have to pay for the crimes of the father. But even if the child will be born into a single-parent, low-income family because the father is absent or the pregnancy was unplanned, does that mean his life is worthless? That his death is justified? Of course not. And the possibility of adoption is often incredibly overlooked and underrated, when many couples are aching to adopt.

But what if the baby is deformed or unhealthy? The physical or mental capabilities of someone should never determine their happiness or right to life. In fact, it would be appalling if someone suggested killing all the children in the world with down syndrome today, just because they are a personal burden or because they do not look or act “normal.” But somehow, it seems more acceptable to abort an “imperfect” baby in the womb, the safest place on earth. It is seen as kind, merciful even, to end their short life before they really enter the world.

In a statement on the case Roe v. Wade, President Obama said, “ [the court decision] affirms a broader principle: the government should not intrude on private family matters…” Is abortion really a private family matter? I have talked to many people who tell me that, personally, they would never consider having an abortion, but they believe in freedom of choice. Isn’t that the same as saying, I would never own a slave myself, but I believe in freedom of choice. I would never commit murder myself, but I believe in freedom of choice. These statements seem absurd, but the point is, the rights to life, liberty, and happiness claimed by a pro-choice mother often obliterate the same rights held by her child. In a similar sense, the United States has laws against murder, rape, and child abuse, which are both morally and legally wrong.

There is no country that can boast of such a free democracy as the United States of America. It is my privilege, then, to voice my opinion and personal conviction on issues that sway my vote for the presidency. More than reviving our struggling economy, creating new jobs, or finding new energy resources, I am concerned with the simple issue of abortion. I believe that abortion is morally wrong because it kills an innocent child; therefore, it should be legally wrong, which is the position held by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In the midst of a mainly Democratic state and school, then, I cast my ballot for Mitt Romney.

            

Political Cartoons

With November sixth quickly approaching, the general public is urgently predicting, debating, and cursing the outcome of the presidential election. One hot topic of this election is the controversial voter identification laws that have been passed in several states, requiring prospective voters to show some sort of legal identification. As of October 2012, thirty states have adopted these laws in some form. The debate has spiked recently because of the upcoming election. Much of the division in opinions about this law is between Democrats and Republicans, so the opposing candidates naturally disagree. Dave Granlund, a cartoonist for the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, argues that these laws hinder legal voters; cartoonist Michael Ramirez, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, asserts that the voter I.D. laws protect against voter fraud. Whereas Granlund’s comic “Voter I.D. laws” relies on metaphorical representation, Ramirez’s cartoon “Picture ID Needed” relates and compares similar laws to more effectively demonstrate that requiring voter identification is a logical step to preserving democracy.

Granlund depicts a maze named “New Voter I.D. Laws” into which an elderly couple is entering, looking slightly confused. Making their way through the maze are several dozen more citizens, all facing different directions and struggling to find the end where they can “Vote Here.” Although Granlund’s comparison of the new laws to a maze seems rational, it does not give any specific details. The audience does not know exactly why or how the new laws create an obstacle to voters. By being so general, Granlund loses credibility with his audience and doesn’t give them a reason to convert to his side. By employing ethos or logos, this artist would have a far greater impact on his audience.

On the other hand, Ramirez’s cartoon skillfully influences the reader through comparison and exemplification. He lists “Important Things You Need a Picture I.D. For” and illustrates seven objects. These objects represent a situation in which a picture I.D. is required, such as buying alcohol or cashing a check. The final picture is a tombstone for a “potential voter” and the caption reads, “…but not to vote for the most powerful man in the world,” meaning the president of the United States. Ramirez clearly gives examples of similar laws that are generally accepted and then demonstrates how they relate to the voter identification laws. His logic may sway the audience of this cartoon with reasoning and examples of related cases.

Dave Granlund and Michael Ramirez both try to use comparison to voice their opinion, although Granlund uses a metaphor while Ramirez shows relationships between common ideas. The two artists also use realistic representations instead of a more stylistic approach, such as a cartoon containing exaggerated body parts or objects. However, Michael Ramirez undoubtedly has a greater effect on his audience through his use of exemplification and logos. For readers of his cartoons, then, there is one less topic to discuss before election day.