In many elections there are situations where all of the available candidates take morally unacceptable positions on one or more of the non-negotiable issues.
In such situations, a citizen is called upon to make tough choices. In those cases, citizens must vote in the way that will most limit the harm that would be done by the available candidates.
Now, imagine a situation wherein one candidate has a record of fighting for unrestricted access to abortion, and the other candidate would only consider allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest.
This is simply an example of a situation where all of the available candidates take a morally unacceptable position, but one will most limit the harm that would be done.
We now have leaders in America, like ArchBishop Chaput, who understand that “Social Justice” doesn’t mean substituting charity with corrupt gov’t programs, that buy votes, but help nobody.
Imagine you have two candidates. Both support slavery, one because it’s a unpleasant necessity, and the other, because they believe it’s essential to their way of life.
Who do you vote for?
If in your imaginary scenario, the candidates are Obama and Romney, your assessment of Obama is correct but your assessment of where Romney stands is incomplete.
the other candidate (Romney) would only consider allowing abortion in the cases of rape or incest or health of the mother
. A distinction made that opens a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through.