Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani - A pro-life dilemma

Warren Throckmorton ^ | Warren Throckmorton

[golfisnr1]

I’ll take a pragmatist over a socialist any day.
Republicans are their own worst enemy. Jeesh!

[Man50D]

Which candidate will work to destroy the existence of the pro-life movement? And which one will not?

Wrong question. The appropriate question is: Which one supports abortion? The answer is both.

Which candidate has promised to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts? And which one has not?

Giuliani's promises contradict his history of appointing judges. Some facts from a 3/27/07 Politico.com article.

"Of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular. A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.Cumulatively, Giuilani's record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state's leading abortion-rights group. "They were decent, moderate people," she said.

There's no "dilemma" to it.

On the contrary. Giuliani's flip flops to deceive conservatives in an attempt to further his socialst beliefs should be a big dilemma for the GOP.

[Perdogg]

There is no dilemma for me. If Rudy gets the nomination, I will be up on Election Day at 5am to walk over broken glass, barbed wire, fire ants, and killer bees to vote for him against Hillary.

Hillary will destroy this country, Even Gary Bauer warned conservatives on Sean Hannity, those conservatives that think that Hillary will be another Cartesque election bounty, that if Hillary gets the White House, it could be decade before the damaged caused by HRC presidency is rectified, if we have a country. Not years, not election cycles, but decades.

[cpforlife.org]

“Senate majority of Republicans and a Republican majority in the House”

Would be great... but that’s not looking very probable, especially on the Senate side where federal judges get confirmed.

[cpforlife.org]

I agree completely Jim.

But we do have a serious dilemma if it’s these two demons in the general.

If you won’t vote for either Jim what will you do?

[ex-snook]

I wouldn’t waste my vote on either one. The winner would claim a mandate. I will look elsewhere. If you don’t vote for someone you agree with, your position will never be known. Stand up and be counted - vote for life. Maybe in 2012, life will be respected.

[Neidermeyer]

You ever hear the saying “Fool me once......”?

If Rudy is the rep nominee I’ll stay home ... I cannot take part in a sham of an election, and I will never have to say “I voted for him”.

[TheDon]

THROCKMORTON: Of Hillary and Rudy, who would most likely make abortion rights a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments?

KENGOR: Hillary, no question. She has made that clear. Rudy would not.

The Supreme Court is not the proper place for this battle. Although the SC "legalized" abortion, it is only because the legislative branch has abdicated it's power to the SC on this issue. To make abortion illegal, we must change the law. Either US law, or the US Constitution.

Trying to get the SC to outlaw abortion, by selecting presidents who will select jurists for that purpose, is an ineffective and detrimental means to accomplish the ends. It even sounds ridiculous. There is just too much uncertainty in the effort. Who will the president pick? Which current justice will he be replacing? Will the justice actually vote to make abortion illegal? Will following presidents simply place justices that will make abortion legal again? Even if the SC make abortion illegal, will state law trump federal law? And so on.

Anti-abortion efforts need to be refocused onto legislative action. Out of the 3 federal branches, the executive has the least amount of power to make abortion illegal. And yet, we keep banging our heads against the wall, and the unborn are still being slaughtered. No doubt, Hillary and the Rats would like us to continue with the existing strategy.

With abortion out of the equation, the choice between any Republican and Hillary should be decisively for the Republican candidate due to issues the president can be most effective at, namely, national security, the justice system, the economy, and freedom!

[Neidermeyer]

I take that back , I’d write in Keyes so Rudy and the RINO’s would know why they lost in a landslide.

[Jim Robinson]

I’ll pray that the majority of our pro-life conservative leaders, senators, congressmen, governors, statesmen, commentators, grassroots groups, etc, vociferously condemn the culture of death abortionists, resign from the Republican party and form a new pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Liberty, pro-America conservative party and offer us a real choice between evil socialism and righteous freedom.

[cpforlife.org]

“he also believes that the issue of abortion should be decided in the political arena... not by judicial fiat.”

First off I don’t trust that’s Rudy’s real position, I think it’s his public strategic way of looking less evil than he really is. IIRC he said he’s fine with Roe staying the way it is-—IOW he could care less if it does not affect him. He’s a two faced fork tongued politician of the worst kind.

Secondly the final objective of the majority in the pro-life movement is the equivalent of a human life amendment which is far beyond just overturning Roe.

[TheDon]

Amen! Well said. I will be joining you.

[VRWCer]

I’d take my ***dog*** over Hellary! That woman is evil incarnate.

[DoughtyOne]

Ronald Reagan and Religion

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14026_1.html

[cpforlife.org]

What do you think about the Constitution Party?

[Clintonfatigued]

“the final objective of the majority in the pro-life movement is the equivalent of a human life amendment which is far beyond just overturning Roe.”

That is the final one, but they’re a long way from that. The pro-life movement in this country has been more successful than they realize. Support for abortion on demand has fallen significantly over the last 10 to 15 years.

And if what you say about Giuliani not feeling that strongly about legal abortion is correct, than as President, he’ll do nothing to prevent Roe vs. Wade from being overturned because it’s not that important to him, and not in his best interest to do so. He certainly won’t impose a pro-abort litmus test to Supreme Court judges, and you know that all of the Democrats will.

If any Republican wins the White House in 2008, IMHO, Roe vs. Wade will be on borrowed time.

[ari-freedom]

I’m thinking of a real credible threat to the liberties of unborn children once the GOP is no longer pro-life. We’ll still survive even under hillary.

[gscc]

“Which candidate has promised to appoint justices like Alito and Roberts?”

Rudy and yourself must think that pro-life voters are gullible enough to buy that a supporter of abortion would nominate judges that would overturn Roe.  Ford, Reagan and Bush, who were professed pro-lifers, all nominated supreme court justices who sided with Roe.  It is ridiculous to believe that the abortionist would do differently. 

[ex-snook]

Well worth repeating;

"I’ll pray that the majority of our pro-life conservative leaders, senators, congressmen, governors, statesmen, commentators, grassroots groups, etc, vociferously condemn the culture of death abortionists, resign from the Republican party and form a new pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Liberty, pro-America conservative party and offer us a real choice between evil socialism and righteous freedom. "

Vote for Life and be counted.

[billmor]

Rudy fails the courage test and for that reason he will not get my vote as a Catholic

Why?..Leadership takes courage. He showed plenty of courage during 9/11..However, he has abandoned the teachings of the Catholic Church which he knows so well, and has shown a lack of courage by adopting a pro-=choice (~ anti-Catholic) position for the sake of political expediency. He has also remarried and is now with his third wife-also in violation of the Church’s teachings. We worked hard for 30 years to vote for the right candidates-Republican- and to try and overturn Roe v Wade, said our Rosaries, prayed at the Masses and the Right to Life Masses, and now we are being asked to support a pro-choice Republican candidate?..No Thanks...No way!...This is a war of good vs evil..There is no compromise, only victory for one side of the other....

As for voting for the lesser of two evils?...if given a choice between two candidates- one pro-choice and one pro-euthanasia, who would you choose ?...or one who supports genocide and one who supports gulags, who would you vote for ?...a choice of lesser of two evils given two very bad choices is no choice, it is siding with the evil itself...