As the presidential campaign heats up (Obama? Clinton? Guiliani? Edwards? McCain? Romney? Huckabee? Thompson?), the media is likely to show disdain for what they call “one-issue voters.”  The disdain will be for those who are pro-life and will not settle for a candidate who is anything but (of course, if your one issue is to keep abortion legal, the media is just fine with that).

Allow me to offer a clarification.  I don’t think being pro-life automatically qualifies you to be president.  You can be pro-life but be otherwise a disastrous President (for me, Jimmy Carter was that guy).  I just think being pro-abortion disqualifies you to be president.  In other words, being pro-life is a necessary quality for a candidate but it is not a sufficient quality for a candidate.

Are there other necessary qualities or policy positions for a president?  Of course.  For me, character, national security, and defending traditional marriage are also critical.  But why is life one of those necessary policy positions?  Because the right to life is the right to all other rights.  If you don’t have life you don’t have anything.  If a presidental candidate refuses to recognize that helpless unborn children are human beings worthy of protection– a truth that in vitro technology has made undeniable– then that candidate lacks either the judgment, compassion or honesty to hold the highest office in the land.

By this criteria, there are leaders in both parties who disqualify themselves because of their pro-abortion stance.  They include Obama, Clinton, Edwards, and Guiliani.   In fact, all four of these candidates have either voted for, or stated their support for, even partial-birth abortion–  that’s when a full-term baby is delivered nearly completely from the womb, a hole is drilled in the back of her skull, and her brains are sucked out with a vacuum cleaner.

Appalled?  Why would you vote for someone who isn’t?