This is where I think you actually stray from the complete all-out fight to save every possible unborn child.
I know you have an argument you think is pure, but when purity doesn’t save as many lives as political expediency could, we should push both, not attack those who have found a way to save a life.
Your opposition would be like being against protesting abortion clinics, under the argument that since abortion should be illegal, simply blocking women from getting INTO the clinics is a half-assed effort when we should be closing them.
Whereas in fact picketers SAVE LIVES, even if they don’t shut down the clinics. And crisis pregnancy centers save lives, even though they aren’t directly involved in stopping the abortion mills. And yes, politicians pushing things like the partial birth abortion ban, and the concept of pain-capable unborn as a way to regulate and discourage abortions, is a good thing. It will save more lives than simply following your plan.
Of course, electing Romney will save more unborn lives than voting for you in the election. Not pure, but saving more lives.
You don’t save lives by giving up every principle of God-given unalienable right, every stated purpose of the Constitution, and its explicit, imperative requirement that every innocent person’s life be equally protected under the law, any more than you could win a war by walking onto a battlefield buck naked and weaponless.
Either all are protected equally, or none are secure in their rights.
Romney, at best, represents the abortion on demand status quo. That is crystal clear.