Spot on!
You have summed up the situation perfectly. Just be prepared to get flamed mercilessly here for it.
But we will still retain the freedom of our conscience, which strikes me as far more important than the temporal freedoms you're so worked up about.
I agree with this portion of your post. Now, since it also advocates putting in people that do not agree with them, how is making a home for dissidents going to improve this situation?
You're right. Without looking up the precise numbers, I beleive about 22-23% of the country polls as opposed to all abortion (mother's life aside), 25-26% want no restrictions, and just over 50% support some restrictions. Obviously that last group can be all over the place in terms of the restrictions they'd support. But if the GOP tells that 50% they're completely unwelcome, it's tough to win elections.
Somethings are so evil, you don’t work with them no matter what your chances.
Stopping abortions has nothing to do with my decision who I vote for. Anyone who does not have a problem with abortion is unfit to serve and undeserving of my vote. I will not vote for any Democrat whether they are prolife or pro abortion because on their parties hand in the systematic murder of 50,000,000 babies. Hitler would be proud of evil Democrats and their equally evil allies in the GOP.
I refuse to join in their evilness.
Would you mind listing some of our "freedoms", or rights if you wish, in descending order of importance?
RvW is about the worst example of judicial overreach in the last 100 years. To be in favor of the outcome a person must be led by emotional plea rather than any form of rationality. It tells a lot about a politician if he or she is for it.
Recently on a plane trip, I was reading the "instructions" and the "in case we lose pressure" section reminded parents to "put on THEIR masks first, in order to be able to help the children and invalids".
This is not because adults are somehow more valuable. It is because they are more capable of action when conscious.
No matter how "anti-abortion" a presidential candidate is, he'll never get an outright "ban" put through with today's congress, or the Supreme Court.
There doesn't need to be a ban, it just needs to be ruled that snuffing out a human life isn't an issue of constitutional privacy and the matter is a state criminal issue rather than a federal rights issue.
You may notice that the bar is set lower on the social conservative side than the social liberal side with respect to judges. A social liberal must have a judge who advocates for his cause over and above the law. A social conservative simply wants the judge to rule within the law, and doesn't demand a judicial advocate. This should tell you that social conservatives are not overreaching in this issue, but somehow you have come to the belief that the spectrum of judicial thought should be from leftist activism to centerist restraint, without even considering the possibility of judicial advocacy on the right.
If the conservatives had the same type of judicial advocates on their side as the left does, then you would see rulings that struck down all limitations on gun ownership, the dismantling of many extraconstitutional government agencies, the complete removal of all antidiscrimination laws, including those concerning "fair" housing and "hate" speech, and the outright support of Christian evangelism in public schools.
Single issue voters will themselves cause the loss of overall freedom in this country...you heard it here.
There is a reason why the Declaration of Independence started with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in that order. It is because life is the most essential thing for the government to protect.