Posted on 03/07/2007 1:41:55 PM PST by madprof98
A Catholic newspaper is telling readers that Catholics shouldn't support White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani because of his support for allowing women access to abortions.
The National Catholic Register's editorial urges anti-abortion voters to choose another candidate other than Giuliani.
"A Republican party led by a pro-abortion politician would become a pro-abortion party," according to the editorial that appears on the Web site and is set to appear next week in the newspaper's print edition.
Editors say "they hope that pro-lifers will 'be reasonable,' not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly," but "we won't."
"When they ask us to 'be reasonable' and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with," the editors wrote. "We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life.
"What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion," according to the editorial.
[snip]
"Would a pro-abortion president give us a pro-life Supreme Court justice? Maybe he would in his first term. But we’ve seen in the Democratic Party how quickly and completely contempt for the right to life corrupts. Even if a President Giuliani did the right thing for a short time, it’s likely the party that accepted him would do the wrong thing for a long time," the editorial reads.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
ping
Yeah, they want to support Hillary instead, and see another ACLU lawyer elevated to the SCOTUS.
That's such a sad, false argument.
It's not Rudy - vs - Hillary just yet.
Im not a catholic but well said!
The dem nominee will be pro baby killing, no matter who it is.
Wait a minute. Isn't the NCR a pretty leftish paper?
I actually saw a really interesting law review article recently -- apparently every single SCOTUS justice appointed since 1935 has drifted ideologically away from how people thought of them when they were appointed. Obviously, people like Souter have drifted more than people like Scalia, but there's still an effect there.
Info like this makes me doubt whether ideology should matter much, if at all, in appointing SCOTUS justices, because we can't predict where they'll end up -- maybe we should just concentrate on qualifications?
the gop primary is well before the general election.
I keep seeing this crop up on anti-Rudy threads and I'm not sure I understand the 'logic' involved. Has Rudy already clinched the nomination? Is it a fact that if we don't nominate Rudy, we will lose?
Yup, you are correct. My bad.
I am a Roman Catholic and I refuse to let the Roman Catholic Church or any church for that matter tell me who to vote for president.
Nobody's "telling" anyone to do anything.
As a label, "Catholic" is even more meaningless than "Republican".
You leave that to "Democrats and Black Churches", right?
Heck I am supporting Fred Thompson who is pro life.
Maybe Giuliani won't be on the ballot. Perhaps the GOP will perform a partial birth abortion on his candidacy. Guiliani will understand. He knows what happens when someone is not wanted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.