At first glance, that sounds good. Looks like a good foundational jumping-off point where we could build a consensus upon.
But you forget about the 1860 historical precent.
Supposedly all we needed then were judges who would overturn the infamous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that left slaves confirmed as "property." Supposedly all we needed then was a POTUS & judges who could help protect against slavery expansion.
Supposedly all we needed then were protections in place vs. Southerner maverick secessionists-terrorists.
Why, we didn't need any fervent GOP anti-slavery candidate. Why, an anti-Dred Scott & anti-slavery expansionist like Lincoln would do just fine (Lincoln in 1859-1860 didn't want to tackle slavery in southern states, only slavery in the new states & territories as well as the slave trade).
But what was Lincoln's rear-view mirror vantage point at his second inaugural speech in March of 1865 shortly before his death?
Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
In other words, all these issues were inter-connected. The reason more blood was shed in the Civil War than American soldiers' blood in all other U.S. wars put together was bound up as Lincoln said, in the "judgments of the Lord"--linked to "250 years of unrequited toil" & lash-induced blood upon slaves.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the reason why the U.S. isn't under a firm "protection" of God's Hand from terrorists at all times is becomes babies in the womb aren't under a firm "protection" of Uncle Sam's hand at almost any time.
So, when GOP voters vote for a candidate who doesn't talk about what Reagan & Bush did--implement the Mexico City policy that would keep the international abortion industry from being funded--that's more blood dripping from the womb.
When GOP voters elevate a candidate who doesn't talk about attempting to reduce funding for the domestic abortion industry--but instead favors a candidate like Romney who places the abortion industry as a permanent placeholder for RomneyCare (Planned Parenthood League of MA)--that's more blood dripping from the womb.
When GOP voters elevate a candidate who doesn't want to talk about abortion like Reagan's book did during his presidency--ABORTION: THE CONSCIENCE OF A NATION--that's more blood dripping from the womb.
You see, it goes beyond just "judges" and Islamo-terrorism, because it's Americans who are terrorizing the womb--not Muslims.
Well said.
Unfortunately the only candidate who would act to protect the unborn is Duncan Hunter who will never get the Republican nomination.
Even Fred Thompson, the second most conservative candidate, just dodges the issue by returning the decision to the states.
Hunter’s position:
Life
Right to Life Amendment
I would amend the U.S. Constitution and provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn. Likewise, I have also introduced the Right to Life Act, which would legally define “personhood” as the moment of conception and, therefore, guarantee all constitutional rights and protections, including life, to the unborn without utilizing a constitutional amendment.
Philosophy of Judicial Appointments
I support people with good judgment, proven values, a belief in God, and a heart for the least of us, including the unborn. I believe it is important that those sitting on the bench understand that they have a responsibility to strictly interpret our nation’s laws and not legislate from the bench with their own political or social agenda. I will not appoint judges who do not believe that the unborn are precious and should be protected.
Federal Legislation and Votes
I have cosponsored the following pieces of legislation:
· The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would amend the federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, if this action circumvents the minor’s native state’s parental involvement law. I voted in favor of this bill when it passed the House 270-157 on April 27, 2005.
· The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2005, which would prohibit and criminalize efforts at reproductive cloning.
· The Parent’s Right to Know Act of 2005, which would prohibit federal funding to carry out federal family planning programs in which service providers in the project knowingly provides contraceptive drugs or devices to a minor, except in specific circumstances.
· The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain and they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate the pain.
I have also supported human life protection efforts with the following votes:
· I supported the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, banning the practice of fetal farming, the creation of embryos specifically for the purposes of scientific research.
· I voted in favor of the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act, which would direct federal funding to stem-cell research that does not rely on embryos.
· I voted against the Stem-Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem-cells, regardless of the date on which the stem-cells were derived from a human embryo.
· I voted against amendments offered to the National Defense Authorization Act permitting taxpayer funded military facilities overseas to be used to support abortions on demand for military women and military dependents.
· I voted against amendments providing UN funding to groups that support coercive abortion programs.
ABORTION should not be the main issue and some christians should better have an humanist approach,really christian,of the good necessary pro-life struggle.
The root of the main threats we have to face and their possible solutions is a spiritual/intellectual choice of civilization.
ABORTION becoming more and more a common place is a straight consequence of a new way of life and behaviour which is based on a loss of faith,hope and culture.
The liberal fairy song always repeat “do what you want”,”be yourself”,”be happy” with a soft voice...and many are falling in the trap.
THAT IS WHERE RELIES THE PROBLEM AND SOLUTIONS.
Do we believe in the future?Do we want children in loving families?
Sensible christians should behave as the true humanists defending not only an abstract “life” but also real people children, women and men...
True sensible christians then should not,to my mind,make their choice on the only abortion issue.
Foreign issues,the shock of civilizations with the islamic world depends also of OUR CHOICE OF CIVILIZATION(do we assume our judeo-christian legacy or not whatever can be our actual faith?).....
I am a french doctor and consider myself as a conservative christian.I am upset by many catholic bishops in France who are straight anti-abortion but regularly take a socialist/liberal stance on immigration which is overwhelmingly a muslim immigration.
Cheers to a bright conservative USA leading the free world!