In actuality, all three branches, along with the people of this country, have the duty to demand equal protection for the millions of unborn children who are killed year after year. The president could refuse to enforce an unconstitutional order from the bench, could call upon Congress to impeach judges, could advocate and sign anti-abortion legislation, and in the very least could use the bully-pulpit to reach the hearts of the American people. That's in addition to his power to make appointments to the bench.
It should go without saying that electing persons with the greatest respect for life and the Constitution gives the greater likelihood that abortion is outlawed. Electing persons without that commitment reduces the probability to zero.
Please do not create a straw man to argue down. I never said a President can do nothing. I asked what a President CAN do that would make his position tenable for you.
Particularly, I'm interested in what you think a President CAN do that Thompson WOULDN'T do if he were elected into office.
That being said, I agree with the rest of your post. But based on your post I don't see how Thompson's position would be untenable for you.
It should go without saying that electing persons with the greatest respect for life and the Constitution gives the greater likelihood that abortion is outlawed.
You need to remember that President Bush is/has been very ardently pro-life, and abortion has not ended in his 8 year stint in office.
Electing persons without that commitment reduces the probability to zero.
That is not necessarily true, but I'll agree that it does reduce the probability.