Replies

The issue is very muddied for some but is very simple for me, to agree with the law of the land that permits the killing of the innocent unborn living human beings is morally bankrupt and thus a positive forward moral initiative can not be achieved. Although I believe there should be a good debate on how best to set the country forward the time for debate on moral beliefs is long over and that will be made loud and clear in the next elections if the GOP doesn't have a candidate that can at least be pro-life (anti-abortion) and a strong leader in the War on Terror. Bottom line as my pastor said last Sunday,"we will not give up our children to the devil!" and to me not being both as described is doing exactly what that does. Rudy may be a good person but I can't morally vote for someone that can't respect God's gift of life especially in its most innocent stage of life.

Read posts 116 and 184 if you have not already.

If Rudy would appoint strict constructionists to the courts, his personal views re: abortion are irrelevant and the overturning of Roe would put the issue back where it belongs at the state level.

If Rudy is the candidate and you do not vote for him, you ain't gonna get the same shot at helping the issue you feel so passionately about from a Democrat. Appoint a few more liberal judges with a 'living, breathing' document persuasion and Roe will be the law of the land for the foreseeable future.