For the paleocon/anti-war conservative response to my post on pro-lifers, Obama and '08, try Larison here, Jim Antle here, and Dan McCarthy (by implication) here. Obviously, if you agree with McCarthy that the intervention in Iraq represents a graver evil than the post-Roe abortion regime - and, more importantly, that the continuation of that intervention only compounds the initial evil of the war - the case for voting against McCain, whether for Obama or for a third party candidate, is more or less airtight. The weaker, but to my mind more plausible case that would justify a pro-lifer casting a protest vote against McCain on foreign policy grounds is the one that Antle and Larison put forward - namely, that there's little reason to think that the Senator from Arizona will put an anti-Roe Justice on the Court, so a vote for McCain isn't really a vote against abortion anyway. I think they are mistaken on this point, just as I think that Larison is mistaken when he suggests that Roberts and Alito would vote to uphold Roe, and I suspect that pro-lifers who choose this election cycle to give up on the GOP would end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But of course there's no way to know for certain, which is the difficulty that pro-lifers have found themselves in ever since January of 1973 - stuck basing their political judgments on suppositions about what judicial appointees might do once they've been placed beyond any sort of accountability.