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.
How can someone who is pro-life support Rudy Guiliani?
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by KenH, Mar 6, 2007.
Page 1 of 2
-
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. -
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. -
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.
-
Regards,
BiR -
God Bless! -
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! -
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
- http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/ro/ron_paul.htm?zIr=5
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
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. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
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. -
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
Page 1 of 2