[BMIC]

Given the choice between two pro-abortion candidates I for one will write in for “none of the above”. There are limits to the extent to which one can compromise. Every Republican I have EVER voted for has required me to compromise to at least some extent. But there are limits, and this is clearly one for many of us.

[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.