McCain is more a more suitable president than Barrack

My opponent has wasted a full round on assumptions. I agree however i didn't say where i got my information, i apologize, this is my first debate. You can find all of the voting records i stated on http://www.senate.gov... there are my cites for all of the voting records stated. The 2 major founding values of the USA are Freedom, The belief that all men are created equal, and they should be treated this way. I do feel that the voting records speak for themselves. I will now go over why they speak for themselves. I will sum up the voting records and provide the outcome. He is for abortion. Voted that an unborn child is not eligible for human rights. (Mar 08) Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 06) Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 07) Let me take you back to 6th grade. Every living organism requires Water, Nutrients, and an environment that is suitable for life. From the time the egg is fertilized it takes nutrients, and water to produce the baby. it also provides an environment which is perfect for life. Therefore their is life from the point of fertilization. All humans have human rights, so does the unborn baby. Barrack is for abortion, which also means he supports that the unborn baby is less than equal. Therefore this position he so strongly protects is against the foundational values of the USA. How about homeland security? Barack Obama believes that the Iraq War has made the US less safe from terrorism, undermined our security, distracted us from a host of global threats, that we live in a more dangerous world because of Bush's actions, that invading Iraq was a strategic blunder, and that Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda, 9/11 or WMD. He believes that the Iraq war was conceptually flawed from the start, that the surge is not working toward enduring peace (because it has ignored political issues), and wants to get our troops out by the end of 2009. He would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. He stated while he was in Iraq that the surge has worked, then he stated that if he could go back in time he still wouldn't had voted for it. and can i ask u a direct question jurist24? How is it appropriate that a man running for President of the United States of America would refuse to wear a flag pen for our country. he also refused to say the pledge, how is that appropriate? Thanks for reading my argument and thank you jurist24 for your debate :) Ill close with a short statement. Tamika McFaden Harris was murdered shielding her daughter by gang gunfire. Chicago sun times 11/18/01 Mike boyd was killed at the age of 15, beaten with bricks by a gang Chicago sun times 11/30/01 Severo Enriques was killed at the age of 14, shot 5 times in the back by a gang. Chicago sun times 1/17/01 They all died in 2001 in chicago the sun times called it "urban terrorism" (11/23/01) and demanded action against gang violents. But that same year Chicago senator barack obama voted against expanding the death penalty for gang murders. When the time came to be tough, he chose to be weak. Can a man so weak on the war on gangs be trusted in the war on terror? Thanks