I am not pro-life nor Christian, but if it is the case that you are as devout as you say then I think your position is logically inconsistent.
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:22–25).
This biblical passage illustrates that a fetus in the womb is valued at the same level as a grown man. You agree to this when you say, “My faith dictates that it is important we care for and respect all people — born and unborn.” However if you do truly believe this then voting for someone who is pro-choice would logically always be morally wrong to you. According to the CDC there were “699,202 legal(ly) induced abortions” in 2012. By supporting a pro-choice candidate you would at least be tacitly condoning the murder of nearly 700,000 unborn children a year based on your own pro-life beliefs.
I don’t disagree that there are many people living dire situations that need help. Yet, there is a huge difference between not helping those in need of charity and allowing murder. “Thou shalt not murder” is one of the Ten Commandments given to Moses at Mount Sinai and while charity is valuable so too according to the Christian tradition is suffering. This can be seen both in the Book of Job specifically and Jesus’s crucifixion as well as in a veritable cornucopia of biblical verses. For instance: “Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin” (1 Peter 4:1). Murder is universally condemned and would clearly take precedence over more earthly concerns when the principal reward remains in the world to come.
It may very well be the case that Donald Trump is pro-life because the Republican Party told him to rather than his own convictions. Nevertheless if you believe that he will not uphold this position once in office then logically you would either not vote, write in a candidate, or support an existing pro-life one like Evan McMullin. What I am getting at it this: either you are not pro-life, or you do not believe strongly in a literal interpretation of the bible and following each and every verse and thus are not as religious as you say, or you have not thought about the logical contradictions inherent to your position.
I’m glad that your “relationship with [your]…savior is a personal one and [you]…sleep soundly at night knowing it’s a strong one.” Perhaps you should investigate your beliefs in relation to God, Jesus, and the bible. It is logically consistent to believe in rational restrictions on abortion (from a moral, but not Christian perspective) and believe all of the other things you articulated above and vote for Hillary. It is also logically consistent to be pro-life in the extreme and base your voting solely on that because you believe that every year 700,000 people are murdered. Claiming to be pro-life from a biblical perspective and thinking that it is the sole issue for the election is logically consistent. Your position is none of the above and amounts to the notion that you believe in the word of God, but that it does not have primary and sole control over your actions. That is logically inconsistent. I urge you to consider the rationale behind your beliefs and determine where you truly stand, not just what your parents told you to believe.