Ray:

If such a decision is a simply a matter of one to one (abortion versus the poor), then I see the point you are seeking to make. One has to choose which is worse morally. In one, death is a guarantee; in the other, it is suffering or death. 

But, of course, voting involves multiple issues, not just these two.  So what happens if the alignment is anti-abortion on one platform but then the handling of a variety of issues on the other (not just poverty, but mass starvation as a result of an excessive hoarding of resources; excessive uses of national power or incarceration in ways that contribute to the destabilization of regions, involving the potential denial of human rights agreements we signed and the excuse for others to use violence for their own ends because of their own self-chosen means (even granting they would likely act immorally anyway- a losing of the moral high ground is the point); policies that could lead to the breakdown of our potentially delicate environment [I know this one is debated, but what if the greenies are right and we do not get a redo? How many lives are impacted then?]. The question becomes when are there enough counter issues on the table that the balance tips in another direction or, at least, the balance is such that a legitimate moral discussion ensues on life and justice about what combination is more damaging. That is a call each voter is asked to make. My point is we ought to respect the complex nature of that kind of a conversation and appreciate that different judgments may be made by individuals looking conscientiously at the same factors.