Regarding point A: I agree.
Regarding Points B & C: I disagree right from the get-go. First of all, when discussing morality, the use of the words “purist” or “manipulative” often negatively describes those with a firm moral position. The question was, which would you support? Period. There is only one answer. A candidate can explain that that is his PREFERENCE, but that he would choose to support something less perfect if he was absolutely sure he could not get the votes for his PREFERENCE.
Forget NUANCE! We’ve had enough of that with Mr. Obama. “Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one.” Matthew 5:37
Overall, I understand where you are coming from but I think Americans are hungry for a good deal MORE plain speaking. Within the “nuanced” realm of Washington DC speak, that needs to be very well understood by today’s candidates.
I am a purist. I want the laws to ban all abortion and all abortifacients. I want IVF banned. I want all embryonic stem cell lines destroyed and creation of new lines banned. I want embryo experimentation banned.
But I would also compromise in a heartbeat to support imperfect laws that truly advanced any of these bans.
When it comes to issues of life:
Morality - no compromise
Biology/Science - objective facts
Policy - prudence that factors in morality and biology
Prudence does not equal selling out.
The Christian ideal is black and white.
The Christian life is frought with gray - which is why it is so hard. This is a remnant of The Fall.