Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani

Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback - a staunch anti-abortion advocate - has endorsed John McCain.

Now the National Right to Life Committee has endorsed Fred Thompson.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/thompson.endorsement/

So who carries more weight? I'm starting to think my earlier prediction of Robertson's endorsement of Rudy was premature. Obviously the anti-abortion movement is deeply divided over these candidates, and if Rudy is nominated, it seems unlikely a lot of them will support Rudy enthusiastically.

I personally hope Fred Thompson wins the nomination. His home state of Tennessee is unlikely to be won by a Democrat, anyway, and I think pretty much all of the Democratic front-runners - Clinton, Obama, Edwards - could beat him easily. Romney is harder because he could win his home state of Massachusetts.

Andrew

You can't make this stuff up!

ANYONE in league with those making money off abortion has made a pact with the devil, whether they know it or not.

That cancels out all the democrats and some of the republicans.

Ol' Herb doesn't carry water for those with bad behaviour and calls it as he sees it.

Herb

Herb this has to be a divisive situation in the GOP if Pat Robertson is endorsing Giuliani, particularly those conservatives like yourself who put abortion and gay marriage as the primary issues.

Here's another take from an evanagelical pastor who is simply astonished by Roberton's endorsement.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/11/robertson-for-rudy-by-jim-wall.ht ml

"...this has to be a divisive situation in the GOP if Pat Robertson is endorsing Giuliani..."

I agree, Chris. Given Mr. Giuliani's proven track record of increasing adoption in New York, I might understand Mr. Robertson backing Mr. Giuliani in the general election, since the democrats receive money from naral and 'planned parenthood.' I suppose the 'lesser of two evils' argument could be attempted. But endorsing Mr. Giuliani now is simply not good, in my opinion.

As with a number of other issues, Mr. Robertson is wrong on this one. He's also kind of strange, but that's another matter.

Herb

Herb said>>>
Given Mr. Giuliani's proven track record.

Is that about cheating on his wife???

Which wife? All of them? Now there's a proven track record!

Like the one he left when she was ill???

"ANYONE in league with those making money off abortion has made a pact with the devil, whether they know it or not."

ANYONE in league with those making money off claiming to be doing God's work has made a pact with the devil, whether they know it or not.

Both statements are either true or both nonsense. However, one cannot be different from the other because both cannot be proven or disproved.

"Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also."

1 John 2:22-23

God does not need dollars, men do. If you read what Skep wrote closely, he's not denying God. Really, what he is saying is that some of us are making a lot of dollars, "working for God / doing God's work".

Doing God's work costs nothing but that required to hold and share ones faith.

The point being, we really shouldn't be doing either FOR PROFIT.

Add war to that list too.

True, I cannot say that God doesn't exist anymore than he does exists. Until He or She comes down and tells me in person, I'll view that anyone making a profit pushing God is no different from a snake oil husker. If there is a God, She'll understand. If not, She wouldn't be much of a God in the first place.

Herb, in 2006 35.5 million Americans went hungry. These were mainly the working poor who couldn't find jobs that pay enough to live on.

That's a staggering number for the wealthiest country on the planet don't you think? You're so concerned with the "unborn" you seem to totally neglect the already living at a tremendous cost.

You will find 2000-3000 verses in the bible that deal with poverty. Probably a good reason for that.

"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

Micah 6:8

This scripture should be a Christians mantra. I try and make it mine daily.

Andrew2,
Since you chose the label "anti-abortionists", I hope you keep the playing field level and say "pro-abortionists" to refer to the other side.

Sorry, Shane - I mean "anti-choicers."

What's inaccurate about calling people anti-abortionists? Is there one "pro-life" person who is not anti-abortion?

However, there are plenty of pro-choice people (like me) who oppose abortion. People who are pro-choice are not automatically "pro-abortion." I simply think women ought to have the choice, even if I personally oppose abortion. I support Bill Clinton's suggestion that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Andrew

Whats the difference in someone saying their anti-abortion, but in favor of the womans choice.

And saying your anti slavery, but your in favor of the slave-owners choice?

Nwokie writes:
Whats the difference in someone saying their anti-abortion, but in favor of the womans choice.

I thought I explained that above. I oppose abortion personally but do think women should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to have one, at least in the first trimester. I think you will find a large number of pro-choice people feel as I do. I think most Americans personally oppose abortion, but a majority are pro-choice.

Andrew

I personally oppose child abuse, because it's harmful to the child. I could chose to say "well, I'm against it personally, but who am I to tell you not to beat your kids?" Hey, it's your household, your choice, right?! But no, instead I'm interested in protecting the innocent with the law.

Shane writes:
I personally oppose child abuse, because it's harmful to the child. I could chose to say "well, I'm against it personally, but who am I to tell you not to beat your kids?" Hey, it's your household, your choice, right?! But no, instead I'm interested in protecting the innocent with the law.

Because you are talking about living, breathing human beings that can live without their mother, not about an embryo the size of a dime that is 100% dependent on its mother's body to develop and, in some people's opinions, is not a person yet.

I am really not interested in starting an endless abortion debate here, only trying to explain how people make the distinction.

Andrew

This Republican and Christian doesn't march to any TV evangalists's endorsements. Pat Robertson is a nutcase. His endorsement of Giuliani proves it.


Giuliani may be running as a Republican, but he admittedly is not really a Republican. I won't vote for this Republican in sheep's clothing.

Having said that, although abortion is an important issue that I feel strongly about, it's only one issue to consider when choosing a President, or any other elected official.

Let's face it. The President can't change abortion law. He can only appoint Supreme Court Justices who can change existing case law. Regardless of the current explosive and heated battle each side fights to get its own Supreme Court "toadies" appointed, Roe V. Wade had been the law of the land for over thirty years. It's not going to go away.

Drilling down this abortion argument to the state level, Oregon Republicans have tied both hands and feet behind their backs with their all-or-nothing anti-abortion requirement for its candidates.

First thing to remember in politics: You can't change policy if you don't win elections. State candidates can't really change abortion policy. So why require an anti-abortion stance from your candidates, Oregon Republican Party? It's no wonder we've lost every statewide race for the last twenty or so years.

Getting back to Giuliani- the entirety of his political positions make him a Democrat. If he won the Republican nomination and ran against Hillary, would I vote for him then? I hope I don't have to make that devil's choice.

"...living, breathing human beings that can live without their mother..."

So, is anyone on any kind of life support worthy of life according to you?

Scary.

Herb

wobboh sez: "I won't vote for this Republican in sheep's clothing."

Later wobboh said: "would I vote for him then? I hope I don't have to make that devil's choice."

Huh? First you're saying no. Then later you're saying maybe. Me thinks Hillary has you scared enough to flip-flop in your own post!

Put me in the anti-abortion but pro-choice camp. But I have extreme concerns about Roe v. Wade's currency. When Roe v. Wade was decided, medical technology wasn't where it is today.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, the lower limit of viability was 28 weeks. Now the lower limit is 24 weeks.

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's uterus, albeit with artificial aid.

Abortions are being performed today on fetuses older than 24 weeks. The pro-abortion folks have no problem with this. It's their "right to choose", they say. You can't tell me that all abortions performed today on fetuses older than 24 weeks are done to protect a mother's health.

Wobboh writes:
Let's face it. The President can't change abortion law. He can only appoint Supreme Court Justices who can change existing case law.

Actually, the president can have an impact on abortion via executive order. One of the first things Clinton did in 1993 when he took office was issue executive orders decreeing that international aid could be used to fund non-government organizations that actively support abortion, thereby reversing the Reagan/Bush policy on this. Bush II reversed this the other way immediately upon taking office.

Regardless of the current explosive and heated battle each side fights to get its own Supreme Court "toadies" appointed, Roe V. Wade had been the law of the land for over thirty years. It's not going to go away.

I think Roe V. Wade is toast, unless one of the current conservative justices retires or dies early and a justice who believes in Roe V. Wade is appointed in place. Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote in recent 5-4 court decisions upholding Roe V. Wade and she's been replaced by Alito. If the current court stays in place another 2 years, it's only a matter of time.

The reversal of Roe V. Wade will only mean that states will have the right to regulate abortion, so some states can ban it and others will keep it as it is now.

Anyway, this reversal is delicate and could tip the other way if a Democrat is elected in 2008 and a conservative justice winds up being replaced somehow. If a pro-life Republican wins in 2008, one of the aging liberals on the Court will most likely be replaced in the next term with at least a moderate (assuming a Democratic Congress), thereby making reversal of Roe V. Wade even more likely.

That's why many social conservatives are worried about Rudy Giuliani.

Andrew

"The pro-abortion folks have no problem with this."

Actually I do. I hope people are smart enough to use condoms or give the child up for adoption instead.

But in no way do I want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do with my body.

But in no way do I want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do with my body.

Exactly!