Continuing the discussion about the pro-life issue being the sole relevant voting issue.

Is there a situation, just one, when it would not be wrong for a pro-life person to not vote for the pro-life candidate, but rather vote for the po-abortion candidate?

Consider a woman who is a battered wife. She and her two kids get beaten to a pulp every night by her drunk husband. She needs to leave him but is afraid. Her only hope is a battered woman's shelter which provides services unique to this peculiar situation. But her county does not have a battered woman shelter. There are two congressional candidates, a pro-life republican who will not spend money on a battered woman's shelter, nor is it a priority with him/her. The other candidate is a pro-abortion democratic who is passionate about women's issues and has as a top priority to build a battered woman's shelter in the county. Would this battered woman be wrong in voting for the democrat? Yes or No.

An elderly couple in their 70s, both are retired and their total income is $1200/month. Rent is $600, there's food, electricity, etc to pay for. Their prescription bills come to $800/month. Often they are reduced to eating dog/cat food (this does happen frequently), they often do not turn on the heat because they can't afford it, they cut out necessary medication from their regimen because of expense. There are two candidates in their district. One is a pro-life republican, for whom prescription drug issues are more about protecting pharmaceutical profits, the other is a pro-abortion democrat, who is committed to providing prescription drug coverage,or at least relief. ls the elderly couple wrong in voting for the democrat?Yes or No.

A woman is homeless along with her two daughters (note that the a significant number of the homeless are women with children). She is trying to get back on her feet. She needs job training and a safe and decent place to stay in the mean time, It will take about a couple of years before she can get back on her feet. She needs her kids to be able to continue to go to school, she needs healthcare, food, a place to stay, etc. There are two candidates, a pro-life republican who is seeking to curtail welfare and assistance benefits and possibly eliminate them and there is a pro-choice democrat who is seeking to provide as much relief to people like her so that they can get back on their feet. Is this woman wrong in voting for the pro-abortion candidate? yes or no.

We could multiply examples.

The answers to these questions can only be from the view point of the protagonists in these situations and so if you answer these questions, you must first enter into the situation of these people.

Here's another question:

Is it okay to vote for a pro-life Nazi? If not, why not.

If the answer to any of the above was yes or if the answer to the nazi question was no, then you have to explain why there can be at least one case in which it may be okay for one person to vote pro-choice and not pro-life. Now if your answer to the above three situations is an unequivocal no, simply based on principle that pro-life first and everything else, regardless of what it is, a distant second, I have nothing else to say. I think that to be un-Christian with all due respect.

Again, I ask is the life of the aborted unborn child who died yesterday more precious in the eyes of God than the 15 month old girl who withered to death in the Ethiopia earlier today? Does God's love drop off in intensity or passion or something once a human emerges from the womb. Is less evil done when a pro-life republican votes against a measure proposed by a pro-abortion democratic specifically designed to provide food and medicine to prevent two year olds in Somalia from withering away by disease and starvation?

Is God more concerned for the unborn than he is for the seven year old girl in the Balkans who is forced into sex slavery and will have been raped hundreds of times in the next few years and will have contracted every imaginable sexually transmitted disease in that time span?

If life were that easy an uncomplicated it would be obvious that it is that easy and uncomplicated. There can be no consistency. We are and will be dragged in the slime of evil because this is the situation of evil in the world.

For us, where is the continuum of care, compassion and principle drawn? If the concern for the unborn is not based on compassion then it is useless. But how can there be true compassion for the unborn if there is none for the mothers. This is the great revelation of the feminists and the great oversight of the pro-lifers. If we had fought just as hard for care of the women involved, such as health benefits, prenatal care, etc, if we had shown that we had compassion for the women involved, we would have gotten far in the issue of abortion.

I think it all comes back to answering one question, what kind of man was Jesus that the adulterers and prostitutes and the unclean could seek him out, knowing his uncompromising stand, yet they were drawn to him? We've certainly lost that if we ever had it and if we can answer that question then we might be able to take a step in the right direction.