It was already well known that Mitt Romney supported the killing of unborn children in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. While theologians have argued extensively about the permissability of the "life of the mother" exception, there is utter moral deplorability in rape and incest exceptions, because the argument, "evil was done to me, therefore I will murder you to ease my pain" simply doesn't hold up.
However, it now comes out that Mitt Romney would also permit abortions in the case of the "health" of the mother. This is codespeak for "convenience". Courts have long held that the "health" of the mother equates to mental distress, and so "health" is generally applied to a plurality, if not a majority of abortion cases. 93% + of the time an unborn child is murdered, it is done out of convenience.
With this now in mind, I see little to no substantive difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama and so I will have to withhold my vote from either. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a man who believes that murdering unborn children (the absolute poorest and "least of these" among us) is morally permissable in such broad cases. This used to be an issue of choosing the lesser of so many evils, but that line is so blurred as to become almost unrecognizable.
Sorry America, but you've chosen your fate.