Click the Pelts
Support Our Viking Kitties
Donate to Free Republic
Sign up to donate monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly donor
Posted on 02/13/2012 7:05:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It is common knowledge that more books have been written about Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, than any other figure except Jesus Christ.
With so much archeological attention directed toward him it is unlikely that much new factual material will surface about Mr. Lincoln. When taken as a whole, the in-depth forensic examinations of his writings, relationships, lineage, marriage, religion (or supposed lack thereof), evidence a complex and brilliant identity.
An interesting phenomenon of the last twenty years, however, has been to place a contemporary lens over Lincoln. In recent writings, Lincoln has been gay, depressed, and now even a Vampire Hunter. So if historian Joseph Ellis can tell us, as he did this week in a Time Magazine special edition on George Washington that Washington would have hated the Tea Party, it is a salient point to consider whether Lincoln would be pro-life were he alive today.
Evidence that he would be pro-life can be extracted from Lincoln's first great political speech, given October 4, 1854 in Peoria, Illinois. At this point in his life, it appeared to most that Lincoln had already reached the apex of his political career. He had concluded a decidedly unremarkable term in the in the House of Representatives in March of 1849 and spent the next several years growing his law practice.
His speech in Peoria was the result of the recent passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act earlier that year, an event that according to Doris Kearns Goodwin's wonderful book, Team of Rivals, stirred him "as he had never been before." This piece of legislation nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which did not allow slavery north of the Arkansas Territory except in the state of Missouri.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The question is stupid. Anyone reared in a Christian culture up until the point that the “Progressives” began applying the causistry of demons to the matter was “pro-life” without the need for an adjective to describe it.
You would be hard pressed to find ANY politician before 1960 that wasn’t at least publicly anti-abortion. They simple wouldn’t have gotten elected.
Why not ask of Lincoln would have supported gay marriage? If you even asked that question before 1960 you would have been treated as an absolute raving lunatic.
Given the choice between pro or anti abortion, which would he have taken? No contest. Just as it should be today.
Well into the 70s homosexuality was deviant behavior. Ah the good old days. lol
This really is a useless question to ask. People are products of their times. The sterile operating field and the advanced drugs used in abortion and birth control are products of the twentieth century. It’s like asking what he would have thought about jet aircraft and space travel.
So aborting the babies has always merely been a question about the safety of the procedure to the mother?
True, so, what changed?
I don’t know if he was pro baby killing, I doubt it. He did however preside over the war that cost 620,000 soldiers’ lives, not counting civilian casualties.
Why do so many disavow the deviancy label for gay conduct now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.