Some people act as though it's horrible to vote based on a single issue, especially if it's abortion. But let's consider that idea carefully.
Suppose there is a candidate whose views and policies you agree with almost 100%. On practically every issue, this candidate is perfect. However, the candidate believes that all Jews (Blacks, Asians, handicapped people, whatever) should be deported or shot. Do you still vote for that candidate?
If you would, then you're like a lot of people, even self-proclaimed Christians, who will vote for someone they supposedly disagree with on a major issue because they believe that the good outweights the bad. But in some cases, a single evil can--must--outweight any amount of good.
I expect some will cry foul, however. After all, how likely is it that a candidate will agree with you on every issue but still have one extremely odious view?
But that's my point--at least partly. You see, if someone is able to justify killing an unborn child, he can justify a lot of other things. Ideas do not exist in a vacuum; one evil will lead to another. So while abortion is a single issue, it touches on other fundamental issues.
You may say, as double-minded voters often do, that the pro-abortion candidate is anti-war and probably anti-capital punishment. But war and capital punishment do not take nearly as many lives in any given year as abortion does--and the lives taken by abortion are easily the most innocent and deserving of protection. Is it reasonable to save a hundred thousand hypothetical lives--those who may be killed in a war--at the cost of a million actual lives?
1 year ago