Here is an analogy recently made by a Romney critic who plans to vote third party because in allowing exceptions to abortion for the reasons of rape, incest, and mother's life, Romney is not sufficiently pro-life:
"Suppose a man wants to kill all the children in the school down the street. Suppose another man calls and says he will go and try to save the rich white children, willingly leaving all
Here is my reply:
"Your analogy about the school children is erroneous. Here is a more accurate analogy. A fire is raging that threatens the lives of 100 children. Three men apply for the position of fire chief. The first applicant states he will not try to save even 1 of the 100 children, and in fact wants to use public funds to pay for the scorching of the children. The second applicant states he will work to save 97-98 of the children from the fire and opposes public funding of the fires. The third applicant vows to save 99 of the children, but in further review, this man is actually on the other side of the country and cannot possibly physically arrive in time to try and rescue the children. Given such a choice, please tell me why it would be wrong to pick applicant #2, realizing that he is wrong about the 1 to 2 additional children he is willing to allow to die in the fire as opposed to just the 1 child who #3 would be willing to allow perishing."