We're talking about the choice of a President. The "alternative" is to elect one who understands and advocates for unalienable rights, and who will keep his sworn oath of office.
Okay. But if our Founders had done that re: slavery, our country and Constitution would probably not exist.
I can't assert this with certainty, of course, since it's impossible to predict the "what-ifs. It may be that our Constitution would have been ratified years later than it was, but that we would have avoided the Civil War (Given the grasp of history that shines through your posts, I suspect you've read "What If?").
It's still a fact, though, that even our Founders turned to state-based incrementalism in order to deal with issues that are unquestionably unalienable rights, but that the nation was too divided to deal with federally. It's possible they were wrong to do so; but the fact that they did tells me that an incremental, state-centered approach to abortion is in line with what they might do were they here today.