I make NO APOLOGIES for anything the government might do in promoting the sanctity of life.You make the mistake of assuming that giving them the authority to do whatever they want to "promote the sanctity of life" would actually be used to do that, and never simply use it as an excuse to punish people who's politics the don't like.
Take a good hard look at the beltway bureaucracies and the people who work there. Can you honestly tell me you think they can be trusted with that kind of authority without abusing it?
Can you honestly tell me you think they can be trusted with that kind of authority without abusing it?
What is the alternative? Voting for flip-floppers like Mitt? Or worse - candidates who say while they are personally pro-life - they won't deny others the right to be pro-choice?
So yeah. If any candidate made pro-life a fundamental aspect of their campain, I would vote for them. I would trust them. See upthread where I mentioned Huckabee. Oh my God! I don't have to tell you of the many FReepers that HATE that man with a passion. Hell, you may be one of them. (lol)
But because he is right on basic fundamental issues (like abortion), then I could care less on some of his secondary flaws.
And as far as "beltway bureaucracies" you speak of that would "nanny state" the pro-life agenda I want, let me ask you. Where were these nanny staters before 1972? I've said it before and I'll say it again: Being pro-life is not indicative of being a nanny stater.