Reading Frank Pastore's article about how pro-lifers might vote helped me see a mistake I believe some pro-lifers are making, especially those who are considering a third party vote. Frank uses the analogy of the end of a football game with seconds left on the clock. Do you go for the field goal to tie or the touchdown to win? Do pro-lifers want to maintain the status quo or make more progress with the next president? But this is a false dilemma because there are not only two alternative. The missing possibility I think some pro-lifers are not admitted is losing.
A pro-life candidate gives us the touchdown option. But given the possible scenario of the two main parties having pro-choice nominees, the touchdown is off the table. Pro-lifers can only choose between tying with a field goal or losing the game. A third party candidate doesn't offer the chance for a touchdown as.
It would be much better if one of the main candidates is pro-life and offers the winning option. Go for the touchdown, of course. But if our alternatives are lose or draw, I'd prefer to go for the field goal and stay in the game. Stay on the field rather than stand on the sidelines and watch a pro-choicer nominate the next Supreme Court justice.