This position is both morally and logically absurd AND practically fallacious. Typical of Kennedys, in other words.
It is never, under any circumstances, OK to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.
That can be a tough call. In some races, all the candidates are pro-abortion. Wouldn't one then choose the less-bloodthirsty one?
The “less blood thirsty”?
In that circumstance I think it is better to not vote.
Those situations arise because the “pro-life” party feels they can get both pro-life votes (which they need to win) and “moderate” voters (ie, pro-choice) by nominating the “less blood thirsty” candidate. This is a forumla for pro-life issues to be taken for granted and minimized.
After a while of losing, the pro-life party will realize they can’t win by nomnating “less blood thristy” candidates and counting of pro-lifers to vote for the lesser of two evils, so they will start nominating actual pro-lifers.
I should add also that part of the reason the Whig party died is they refused to take a firm anti-slavery stand.
Enough people who refused to vote for a pro-slavery Whig candidate (or even a moderate slavery Whig candidate, your “less blood thirsty” option) that it eventually killed the Whig party and gave rise to the Republican party.