But the division is the fault of the baby killers, not those who are pro-life. The fault is also with the libertarians who are fine and dandy with their own life being protected by do not care if an innocent child is protected. There is no compromise here. I will never vote for someone who is fine with abortion. Never. The right to life of the innocent is fundamental.
I understand this. There comes a point, however, where one has to consider the best way to protect those rights and increase our ability to do so. Right now the "cudgel" approach simply outlawing it isn't yet viable.
What we can—and should—do from a government standpoint is defund to the greatest extent possible. Here is where libertarians and conservatives have common ground: libertarians (even those who are "pro-choice") see it as a waste of money, and conservatives see it as a travesty. The courts have next to no authority to allocate federal funds.
I would never support a candidate who makes it part of their platform to explicitly support and subsidize abortion. Believe it or not, there are a few politicians (ahem, Andrew Cuomo) who hold that stance. But if it came down to a big-government statist who passed himself or herself off as "pro-life" and a limited-government libertarian who is more or less indifferent to abortion, I'd be much more inclined to vote for the libertarian—not because I think the life of the young is any less important, but because the numerous problems we have with government that can be fixed through policy changes are better suited to the libertarian's strengths.
The fight for life is going to be a long war. Sadly, we'll lose some along the way while it is fought. However, I would rather set the stage for a total victory than rush into a Pyrrhic one that we ultimately lose for good.
