So you're saying legal abortion is a commie practice which shouldn't be opposed? Which side are you on?
I'm not positive the data back up your claim. On the national level, strict pro-lifers are twice as numerous as strict pro-choicers as far as likely voter polls tell us. Personhood also does relatively well in Dem strongholds like Pueblo.
The past fifty years or so of attempting to make "social" issues into political issues has been detrimental to both our society and politics. That's a fact. Otherwise, our politics would be Constitution based, our economy would be fiscally sound, and our culture would be morally sound. "Social" conservative politics has been a disaster all around.
No morally sound culture allows legal abortion. Fifty years ago, abortion was illegal. It is left-wingers who have made this a political fight. You're advocating surrender to a leftist agenda that warps the constitution to invent a right for a doctor to kill an unborn baby.
Perhaps social conservatism is only a disaster because it keeps allying itself with false friends and saboteurs instead of taking the battle to the enemy within the Democratic Party.
The Personhood backers in Colorado don't play well with others and get annoyingly purist. But I'll side with them over anybody who rants about how stupid their positions are.
No, that is not what I said. Single issue ultimatums or referendums during a hotly contested election are counter-productive to the proclaimed cause of "social conservatives", precisely because these referenda bring out larger numbers of opponents, who also vote against conservative candidates who would have moved the "social conservative" issues forward, had they been given a chance to win politically. When I lived in Colorado, I watched this happen several times with anti-gay, anti-abortion, and parental sovereignty amendments, all of which I supported, but which turned out to create a backlash against conservative candidates, candidates who would have moved these issues forward had they been elected. The proper avenue would have been to get the conservatives elected first. Now, for instance, you have the open borders, gay mayor becoming governor, and the Obama rubber-stamper continuing as US Senator.
Perhaps social conservatism is only a disaster because it keeps allying itself with false friends and saboteurs instead of taking the battle to the enemy within the Democratic Party.
No, social conservatism is a disaster because its proponents continually put the cart before the horse, getting their issues shot down along with good conservative candidates, instead of getting good conservative candidates elected first, and letting those candidates legislate, instead of trying to change state constitutions or legislate by ballot referendum. (Yes, I recognize that such referenda are legal in some states, Colorado being one.)
In these recent elections, TEA party conservatives won coast to coast (except in Colorado and a very few other places), by confining their campaign message to appeal to the widest majority of the population on the issues that affect that wide majority, such as the financial disaster our country is currently in. Ballot referenda to change a state constitution are going to get massive resistance, and rightly so, regardless of the topic.
I'm not arguing against pro-life or any other "social conservative" issues. I'm arguing against attempted methods of political change that have repeatedly proven to be counter-productive to stated objectives.
(Yeah, personally I prefer the Solomon approach...let's de-puricize this "issue" by justing cutting the pre-born babies in half...acknowledge the personhood of the pre-borns to the pro-lifers and allow them to hold a real funeral service for that pre-born...and then allow the pro-aborts to continue reference the "evidence" as a "mom's choice".../sarc)