How can someone who is pro-life support Rudy Guiliani?

Although I would disagree that support for a politician who is pro-choice means that a voter is also pro-choice, for a variety of reasons, I think the answer to this question is simple. It's called, "Selling out for personal gain and political power." Giuliani, in spite of the fact that he is an out and out social liberal, wears the "R" next to his name. As long as there is an R in the White House, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Richard Land and that other rabble, think they have some influence and power.

My hope is that the resounding defeat of any Republican presidential candidate in 2008 will spell the end of the "Religious Right," so that those of us who are more interested in a church that preaches Christ instead of politics can get on with the work of winning the lost and making disciples without people thinking they have to become white and Republican before they join our churches.

 

I would like to see one "biblical" reason why a Christian can support a politician who is pro-murder and not be held accountable for it before God.

God Bless!

 

They cant. But refusing to vote when the opposing candidate is also pro-murder of unborn children may put that person in the White House. Either way you play a role in seating a murderer in the White House.

 

If the choice is between a pro-abortion Republican and a pro-abortion Democrat, then no matter what, a pro-abortion candidate is going to be president.

If you don't vote, you aren't playing a role. Even if you do vote, I'd contend you really aren't playing much of a role.

If there is no pro-life candidate (read: no pro-life Republican--we all know that 3rd parties won't actually be elected, and the Dems won't allow a pro-life candidate), then I don't see how I would be in any way responsible for a pro-abortion candidate being elected.

It seems like I have as much responsibility for the attack on Pearl Harbor (way before my time) as for the election of a pro-abortion candidate in that circumstance.

 

I will not vote for Rudy. Period. If the GOP wants to lose, then they can nominate Rudy.

 

What about those who put someone in the White House who talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk? If you did, then following your logic, you are just as guilty.

Regards,
BiR

 

I would disagree. I will not be guilty for a flip flopper. I can only judge by what I know at the time i cast the vote. We can only judge by what they say and what their past history is while holding political positions.

God Bless!

 

Yes, but tell me why the murder of innocent babies is an issue between candidates who call themselves Christians?

EVERY Christian posting on this board would say that abortion is murder. If this is not true someone please correct me.

But here is the problem. Christians have swallowed this goofy idea that they can say they "personally" believe abortion is wrong BUT also believe a woman has the right to choose for herself whether or not to kill her child. Lets follow out this logic. Ok, murdering a four year old is wrong but lets allow each mother to choose for themselves if they want to murder their own children. Stealing is wrong but lets allow each person to decide for themselves if they want to still from another.

It is stupid! Tell me what "other" issue could possibly rise to the level of causing a Christian to ponder whether or not to support the killing of a baby in the womb?

Let's see, Killing babies or paying more taxes, what should I pick? Killing babies or fixing ssi, what should I pick? Killing babies or abandoning the Iraqu people, which should I pick? Killing babies or reducing the national debt? Killing babies or health care? Killing babies or Global warming? Killing babies or ??????????? Fill in the issue and tell me what is more important than taking a stand against baby killing.

God Bless!

 

While I agree with the thrust of your post, I could see some voting for him for a bunch of other reasons, but I couldn't.

 

Well, I am leaning towards Rudy, as you know, because I think that the Democrats will nominate Hillary and I think that I am tired of living under Democrat rule after a lifetime of it. My parents were also sick of living under Democrats and liberals.

However, I have never said that Rudy would not have to make repairs to his position. I have said that I have thought that Rudy would have to pledge to run on the Reagan platform, that Rudy would have to pledge to do all that he could to enact the Reagan platform, and that Rudy would have to pledge not to obstruct the Reagan platform.

Now conservatives on this board have been leaning for Ron Paul, but as a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, Ron Paul is against the Reagan platform calling for a constitutional amendment to end abortion since 1980 with the GOP being nationally pro-life since 1976. Ron Paul is also against Reagan's platform of 1984 calling for the death penalty. And clearly Ron Paul is against the GOP foreign policy since 1940 and Wendell Wilkie. So it is Ron Paul who is not a team player and will not compromise his position to support the Reagan platform but who wants to destroy that historic institution once and for all.

With Rudy, it is wait and see. We know that he is a team player and that 56% of the GOP think that he is a winner against the Democrats in 2008 and that 44% of the GOP are leaning towards Rudy. This is versus maybe part of one percent for Ron Paul nationally. With no true conservative in support of Reagan, Rudy is the one most likely to rationally compromise his position to support Reaganism since Reagan appointed Rudy to US Attorney and started his career. Rudy would be grateful because he is a hero of Nine Eleven and America's Mayor, Mayor of the greatest city in the world.

 

Ron Paul wants to discard the Reagan plank on abortion from 1980. Ron Paul does not like Reagan's leadership on abortion, the death penalty, and marriage and divorce.

Rudy is going to have to compromise. If a man repents and changes for the better, is that a flip-flop? Is that what they call new Christians in Arkansas--flip-floppers because they didn't stick with Satan? No, a man can abandon the positions he held east of the Hudson River.

 

And Ron Paul should be running as a Libertarian or a Constitution Party nominee since he has made it more than clear that he wants to blow up the foundation of the Reagan legacy, the 1980 GOP platform plank calling for a human life amendment to the US constitution.

44% of the GOP is leaning towards Rudy.

56% of the GOP says that Rudy can beat Hillary.

 

Why don't we tell the truth and say that Ron Paul does not hold to the Ronald Reagan positions on the death penalty, abortion, and federal control of marriage? Abortion was the number one issue with Reagan and Reagan wanted a constitutional amendment as do the overwhelming majority of Republicans.