exclude from the debate the abortion-after-rape, abortion-or-mother-dead, abortion-or-mother-seriously-injured questions. To understand me right: we will not conquer by watering down what also is irrefutable truth; but there is no realistic chance either to do so by exhaustive investigation whether those who have, at any rate, publicly joined our flag really do hold all this flag stands for. And an important thing is also: we have an actual moral confusion about the said issues, and great masses think that abortion is justified after rape, as opposed to a mother's death or serious injure. That renders it more or less impossible in a democracy to change law on that. On the other hand, we do not have such a moral confusion about abortion in general. About this, we have a lot of political correctness to protect an opinion noone really holds (viz. its justifyability). If neither candidate bearing an R or a D is one who represents you, I see no moral problem with voting for a third party candidate that represents you. Cathy, history teaches us that a third party vote is likely to benefit the incumbent, rather than the challenger. Can you see that giving Obama a second term would be a moral problem? If so, then you must be able to see that contributing to that outcome would be a moral problem for any voter who chooses a third party candidate. Cathy said: "I see no moral problem with voting for a third party candidate that represents you." That's