I’m not opposed to incrementalism as a way to turn back the tide of child-murder - sure, there exist superior alternatives (unborn child protection amendment, or simply an explicit amendment recognizing the personhood of the unborn), but, IMO, the political gulf from here to there is too wide to clear in a single jump.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would extend the bridge a great deal, and save millions. I count anyone supporting that goal as an ally in this regard.
“I’m not opposed to incrementalism as a way to turn back the tide of child-murder”
M203M4, you have my respect for umm not using incrementalism in a negative way. I have never understood how incrementalism got a bad rap amongst conservatives. We cons arent opposed to change, we are opposed to radical change, untested ideas, uniform impositions and govt fiat. The one thing, in terms of change, we should be for is incrementalism. Which leads me back to the article I posted. Federalism allows for slow change either for what you believe or againt it. But it better than immediate change at the drop of a hat like a centralized federal government would do.