That's the perspective I've come to as well. Yes abortion is murder, but, its murder done in someone else's family, not mine--and it is the Dr. and the mother who are primarily accountable to God--not the government.
Does government have a responsibility to protect innocent babies? Yes, but when their own mothers want to kill them, that's very hard to do. Let's reign in government first, then we can sort out the priorities, and get proper protection for the most innocent among us.
In ancient Rome, a father could murder anyone in his household (wife, kids, slaves) with impunity--as it was HIS house. Christians didn't try to first reverse that ancient pagan law....they worked around it, and eventually humane behavior won out.
While the pro-life platform should NOT be eliminated, and abortion should NOT be funded with public money, real conservatives should be wise in how we proceed.
Ditto when it comes to infant kids, so we shouldn't be getting government involved in the killing by parents of their kids.
Good God, the utter insanity of some "libertarian" thinking. And libertarians think they're the "intellectuals" of the right....
Ancient Rome wasn't founded on anything close to Judeo-Christian principles, the 'conversion' of Rome was the first. We, as a nation, started with the concept that certain unalienable rights exist, including Life. With that as a founding principle, we have strayed from our original concept. It isn't a question of reversing beliefs (including religious beliefs) which already existed, it is a question of sticking to our founding principles.
The TEA party movement is a movement which seeks to return to those founding principles, the unalienable nature of the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and to get government's sticky and overreaching fingers out of the aspects of our lives it was never intended to meddle in, much less dominate.
The idea that government can decree that it is okay to murder someone who is 'too young to count' leads, logically, to murdering those who are 'too old to count', or 'too infirm', or 'not mentally competent enough', or 'too brown', or 'too white', or 'too big' or 'too small'--it literally knows no bounds but the caprice of those who state the criteria.
This sort of power, whether it be over life or over money, property, or servitude, flies in the face of the concept of a Republic in which government power is limited and derived from the consent of the governed.
There is no way to limit the power of government in the one area (material things) without limiting the power of government in all things, else prosperity will be meaningless when 'the government' decides to take your life and all else you posess.
There is no doubt in my mind the founders and anyone who gives the concept thought could understand how the ability to decide who lives and dies could be readily corrupted by the desire to sieze the assets of the person(s) condemned, and to permit such condemnation for any but the most dire crimes against humanity opens the door to that corruption.
The issues ultimately, cannot be adequately addressed without addressing them all.