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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Mar 6, 2007.

  1. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rudy Guiliani is pro-abortion as is Hillary Clinton. Therefore, I must ask how anyone who claims to be pro-life can support Rudy Guiliani. Anyone who supports Rudy Guiliani should be honest enough to drop the facade of calling himself pro-life. He is not. Anyone who supports Rudy Guiliani is pro-abortion. Period.
     
  2. Jack Matthews

    Jack Matthews
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2006
    Messages:
    833
    Likes Received:
    1
    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.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bingo! :thumbs:
     
  4. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    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!
     
  5. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    One is only responsible for placing in office a person for whom one votes. One can never be responsible for placing in office a person for whom one does not vote.
     
  7. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because there are other issues to vote on besides abortion.

    My problem is not with anyone voting for someone with the abortion views of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani but with someone making a big deal out of being anti-abortion and then voting for someone such as Clinton or Guiliani.

    If one is not going to be a one issue voter, then he shouldn't make a big deal out of one issue. And if he is going to be a one issue voter, then he shouldn't be voting for someone with whom he doesn't agree on that one issue.
     
  8. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    72
    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.
     
  9. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    72
    I will not vote for Rudy. Period. If the GOP wants to lose, then they can nominate Rudy.
     
  10. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    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
     
  11. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    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!
     
  12. steaver

    steaver
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    9,005
    Likes Received:
    82
    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!
     
  13. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  14. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul is strongly pro-life. He therefore opposes all methods of abortion. In 2006 he introduced H.R. 776 to have Congress declare that life exists at conception and to prevent federal courts from claiming jurisdiction over cases involving abortion.

    - http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ro/ron_paul.htm?zIr=5

    And people are calling Romney a flip-flopper. :laugh:
     
  16. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guiliani is pro-abortion, pro-homosexual "marriage", and pro-gun control.

    Ron Paul is anti-abortion, anti-homosexual "marriage", and anti-gun control.

    The contrast cannot be any greater between these two candidates.

    With Guiliani's positions he should be running as a Democrat. His views on social issues and gun control are straight down the Democrat line.
     
  18. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That won't last.

    Ron Paul holds to limited government positions. The same kinds that Ronald Reagan held and that the Republican Party had been known for since 1964 until George W. Bush and his neo-con buddies wrecked the GOP.
     
  20. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    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.
     

Share This Page

Loading...