[jwparkerjr]

Being pro-abortion isn’t always a ‘either/or’ situation. There are degrees of being pro-abortion and when you are faced with two such candidates your obligation is to vote in the way that will do the least of amount of good for the more pro-abortion candidate. Simply sitting out the election, as a write-in “none of the above” is, is not the best use of your vote in the situation. If doing so would reduce the number of abortions I would agree with you, and vote with you, but that’s simply not the case. When faced with two pro-abortion candidates it means that for the term of that person abortions are going to continue. The question then becomes which candidate will do the most to reduce the number of abortions. Clearly in this case it would be Rudy. Sometimes you don’t have the luxury of simply doing nothing.

[penowa]

You’re kidding, right? Or kidding yourself.

[TitansAFC]

-—”The question then becomes which candidate will do the most to reduce the number of abortions. Clearly in this case it would be Rudy.”-—

That is either a fundamentally dishonest or ignorant statement that is impossible to back up with any facts whatsoever - period.

Rudy once described himself as one of “the most effective abortion rights activist in America” before a NARAL meeting.

Wise up. Lies are unbecoming.

[calcowgirl]

There is no requirement that one vote, especially for someone/something they find repugant.

If given the choice to murder an ill elderly man or a five-year-old child, which would you choose?

I go with “None of the Above.”

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Being pro-abortion isn’t always a ‘either/or’ situation.

You mean sometime, the baby doesn't end up being butchered like a spring veal while still inside the womb, or having its skull punctured, or its flesh scalded and stripped away via saline solution; and therefore goes on to live out its natural, rightfully allotted time span, then...?

Because, if that's NOT what you meant... then: you're simply babbling, really.

[Silverback PING]