...Does anyone honestly expect that Republicans will "deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion"?...
Why not?
Have they (as a group) not honestly stated their opposition to abortion, over the years?
Or are they only being honest if they agree with
you?
Thank you for your personal opinion on the subject.
Kondor is missing the point. Dealing "honestly with any disagreement" does not mean stubbornly objecting and doing everything in their power to deny women their Constitutional right to privacy. Instead "dealing honestly" means acknowledging that not everyone agrees that "life begins at conception" and for those that don't they should be allowed to exercise their rights as they deem fit without being vilified.
I disagree (I think).
I understand the distinction that you are trying to make.
I also believe that you are abusing the definition of 'honest dealing' here.
Honest dealing, to my tiny little mind, means conducting one's self openly in support of one's viewpoint.
Honest dealing, in your mind, appears to mean conceding the point (to each one's own), in a functional sense.
If one believes that life begins at conception, then ending such life is a Wrong Thing.
One cannot be true to one's self and one's values by conceding the field to Evil (doers of Wrong Things).
Most
especially when dealing with (perceived) Human Life.
So long as one is open and above-board about one's opinion in such matters, one is dealing honestly.
At least, according to any functional definition that I've ever encountered.
Or so it seems to this observer.
You are dealing with religious absolutes that don't allow for compromise.
Nolo contendere.
...Religious absolutes are not allowed to dictate government policy...
Historically, this is not accurate.
Until Roe v. Wade, the 'absolute' about life-begins-at-conception was, indeed, dictating government policy, for decades (centuries).
Until the past few years, the 'absolute' about homosexuality being an evil and unnatural practice was, indeed, dictating government policy for decades (centuries, millenia) - as evidenced by sodomy laws.
...The compromise is to follow your own conscience as far as what you can control which is yourself...
Holders of such viewpoints will tell you that no compromise with Evil is possible.
...You have no right to impose your religious absolutes on others who don't share your religious beliefs. ..
Theoretically, this is true.
In practice, and certainly, historically, this is untrue.
The United States is what I would call a Secularized Christian Country - in effect, populated largely by adherents of Christianity, in its various and diverse forms, and by the descendants of such adherents; descended from immigrants from nations dominated by that particular belief system, and whose laws, culture, etc., are absolutely saturated with the mores and beliefs and practices of an earlier Christendom, even though our own secularization effort is more than two centuries old, and even though we tend to lose sight of just how heavily our society leans upon a secularized adaptation of that belief system's heritage and traditions.
...That is how the Constitution works...
Indeed.
And we, as a People, are in a constant state of flux, in finding a balance between Religious Influence and non-sectarian, secularized public behaviors and law and practices.
...If you don't like it change the Constitution...
Personally, I'm quite content with our tradition of Separation of Church and State. You are preaching to the choir.
...Until then you have an obligation to obey the Law of the Land...
Agreed.
...and allow others to exercise their rights as they see fit...
Unless you perceive that they are doing Evil and Wrong Things, in which case it is one's right to advocate for and attempt to bar or prohibit or inhibit or impede or minimize or ameliorate or negate such Evil or Wrongdoing to the maximum extent one can attain within a legal framework.
...Anything else is dishonesty and unAmerican.
No.
Openly working to bar or prohibit or impede (etc) Evil or Wrongdoing, without disguising one's viewpoint or activity, is 'honesty' in both a literal and figurative sense of the word.
Sorry.
And, as to being un-American, well...
It is not un-American to seek to bar or prohibit or impede Evil or Wrongdoing within the framework of The Law, either at the Statutory or Constitutional level.
As a matter of fact, that's as American as Mom and Apple Pie... a long-standing, time-honored tradition.