Having said that. You posted several remarks that clearly expressed disdain for social conservatives. You made that abundantly clear. Your post at #62 is ALL yours. My response was to correct your illusionary claim and to set the record straight. Social conservatives aren't one issue voters. Far from it.
However, the Founding Fathers did place a fundamental right to life in America's first governing document that began to break our ties from the tyrannical British Empire. They clearly state that in the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
If you support freedom and liberty, a right to life is a pretty easy concept to grasp. You appear to have a serious problem with Constitutional conservatives who agree in principle with the Founders and the priority they gave to life, as written down in the Republic`s earliest governing document. I really don't know what you tell you. In this regard, the Founders original intent was crystal clear. Clearly, abortion on demand and partial birth abortion aren't found in any of America's founding documents. Killing the unborn is not a fundamental right. The right to life, is a fundamental right.
OK, I buy that.
Now, why does the "social conservative" require the modifier "social" in front of "conservative".
As you have noted, I do have disdain toward what I *think* that modifier implies, but I'm now asking you to tell me what you think.
Why "social conservative"? Why not simply "conservative"? What's the difference?