“But in many parts of the country, neither candidate on the ballot is nominally pro-life. Some then start talking about not supporting the “lesser of two evils”. They advocate indifference and indifference in important matters is a sin.”
Good point. Maybe in those jurisdictions, if religious voters took their beliefs seriously and found themselves in this conundrum, they could come up with their own candidates to run.
Not necessary. I support the candidate that who is:
1. Willing to be an ally of pro-lifers
2. has a reasonable chance of getting elected and defeating the NARAL candidate
I know a former legislator who was a consistent pro-family vote in the state House. Some pro-life activists met him in town, discovered he was not a serious pro-lifer and organized against him. His NARAL opponent won.
Bottom line: if you’re in politics, you have to be able to distinguish between your allies and adversaries.