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.
If the person who would “Do the least harm” were elected, there would have been a Million more babies born every year, in America, since 1973.
Baloney!
Though I share your sentiment, and would like to agree with your assessment that Roe v. Wade would not have still allowed each mother to choose whether or not to become a personal mini death camp if we elected the right person each four years, I cannot see how it will make much difference today — even the GOP candidates say so (that they can do little to nothing to effect the impact or practice of abortion on demand in our land).
Or perhaps you are saying if the right person had been in office they would have appointed the right SC justice(s), etc., etc., etc., and Roe v. Wade would have never opened the floodgates to our own holocaust.
I wasn’t even voting age in 1972, so I guess I cannot take personal responsibility for that election, or prior ones that put the Roe v. Wade crowd into position to allow American’s to destroy their own conscience as a people.
BTW, I am not impugning those who vote for the lesser of two evils, as I have done many times, I am just not seeing the fruit of picking either. Would you rather jump off a cliff, or take slow(er) acting poison? Seems like personal preference if you are going to die either way. I would rather just trust God to bless all the good things I do in obedience to His word, and all the good actions of faithful Americans, as He will surely bring justice and judgment to our land. Of course, I pray for our repentance and His mercy. Those who want to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils still have my respect, while those who choose the alternative don’t.