The Spork has a good post about being unable to vote for Condi because she's pro-choice.
As many of you know, there is running speculation that it may end up being Condi vs. Hillary. In that circumstance, who are we, Pro-Lifers, supposed to vote for? Condi is a self-coined "mild" pro-choice supporter, and well, we all know what Hillary is. Does the Categorical Imperative apply to this case? Are we suppose to vote for the "lesser of two evils" or vote for someone who is staunchly pro-life? Some argue that voting for Condi would help keep Clinton out of DC, which would absolve any concerned Pro-Lifers since they chose the "mild" abortionist versus the "staunch" abortionist. This issue is a weight on my shoulders, though.
On the face, it may seem obvious that voting for potentially fewer abortions is better than failing to vote and increasing the possibility of more abortions. However, no decision stands in isolation. If a pro-choice Republican wins there may be fewer abortions than if a pro-choice Democrat wins for the near future, but such a victory would open the flood-gate for pro-choice Republicans. Perhaps it would be better to endure a pro-choice Democrat for a short time just to ensure that the Republicans know that taking a pro-choice stance is a recipe for failure, thereby potentially reducing the number of abortions in the long-term.
Politics is like war, and sometimes it's inevitable that people will die. The decisions then are who?, and how many?. Voting for a pro-choice Republican over a pro-choice Democrat may spare a few lives now but cost many more lives in the future if the pro-life stance is weakened. In contrast, withholding a vote from a pro-choice Republican may result in more abortions now, but end up preventing many more by strengthening the pro-life position.