The BBC article here indicates that abortion laws in Europe are actually quite a bit stricter than here in the U.S.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm

Notice that in the countries you listed, abortion is generally proscribed after twelve weeks. In most of the U.S., it is 24 weeks. Furthermore, contraception is indeed widely available and relatively inexpensive. It also fully-subsidized for those below the poverty line.

The fact that secular Europe has stricter abortion laws and lower numbers of abortion does in fact speak volumes, although it probably says exactly the opposite of what you were hoping it would say.

Francis Bicknell Carpenter, in “Six Months in the White House with Abraham Lincoln”, published in in 1867, relayed the following exchange:

“No nobler reply ever fell from the lips of a ruler, than that uttered by President Lincoln in response to the clergyman who ventured to say, in his presence, that he hoped “the Lord was on our side.”

” “I am not at all concerned about that,” replied Mr. Lincoln, “for I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord’s side.” “

I suppose Lincoln could have determined neither side was on God’s side in the crisis he faced, but would the world be better off today if had? I don’t think so. Mark Shea, Mark T. Mitchell, et al can keep sitting things out while they pray for perfection. It won’t do them or their communities a lick of good to refuse to swallow their pride, pick a side, and do what they can in this fallen world. Sitting it out is the one option that pretty much ensures nothing will ever improve.

But I also had the option of writing letters to the leadership of the Republicans (no sense in either trying with the Democrats!) to say that I would never vote for a pro-abortion Republican.

Thankfully it didn’t come to that then or now, and I cheerfully cast my vote for the ticket which is pro-life, albeit not perfectly so. That perfection will have to wait for another day when, God willing, a larger number of Americans’ hearts are changed, and minds clarified to recognize that abortion should be forbidden in all circumstances in which murder is (because it is the same thing.)

We have it on good authority that some demons are only cast out through prayer and fasting. Let us “brace ourselves to our duty.”

- Reduce the income inequality and allow everyone to have a chance to participate in the economic progress.

- To make birth control widely accessible.

Looking at Germany, Netherland, Switzerland, etc., these countries have a much more lenient abortion law and yet the abortion rate of these countries is very low compared to America. Also, these countries are much more secular too, and that speaks volume…

I wrote to my senator and asked him to vote against Obamacare and to remember his prolife stance (on which he had campaigned for his office), but strangely enough, his political party meant more to him than my letter: he voted for Obamacare and showed that his supposed prolife commitment was meaningless to him next to his loyalty to the Democrat party. The only impact that I can have on him is to vote for the other guy in this election!

“I won” was the president’s response to the members of Congress who tried to get him to modify his health care bill. Yes, he won, and he has been doing what he wants regardless of the objections of many Americans. The only way to stop him is to vote against him. We are voting for human beings, so they will inevitably be imperfect. But I do think that we have a responsibility as citizens to try to stop politicians who support or, worse yet, actively promote intrinsic evil from being elected–by voting against them.

I don’t worship politicians, and I don’t put my faith in them. However, I believe that I have a duty to use my vote to try to elect the less evil of them, especially since we now see the amount of injustice that can be done by the more evil of them.

“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

So, in the current election, we know Romney’s stand is for limiting abortions, while Obama’s is for unrestricted abortions. Not voting for Romney but for some other third-party or write-in candidate would aid Obama, and therefore does nothing to limit evil.