Randall Terry of Operation Rescue has issued a press release today entitled, "Hillary Would be a Better President than Rudy for the Pro-Life Cause."
While Terry hasn't sold me on that one, he does raise some points worthy of consideration for pro-lifers:
The ultimate goal of the pro-life movement is to make child-killing illegal again.
Concerning child-killing itself, Giuliani would appoint judges who will uphold Roe vs. Wade; he has stated he would allow federal funds (taxpayer dollars) to be used to pay for the death of unborn children; he would make pro-abortion appointments in positions of great power; all of this would result in setting the pro-life movement back 20 years, and severely undermining our goal of restoring the protection of law to unborn babies.
As President Giuliani would be the de-facto head of the GOP; he would systematically destroy the political power of the pro-life movement within the GOP; he would pressure the party to take the pro-life plank out of the party platform; he would declare the "abortion issue" is divisive, and should not be part of federal races; he would make the GOP the mirror image of the DNC regarding child-killing, thus insuring that there is no pro-life party.
An enemy outside your camp makes you vigilant; an enemy in your tent makes you dead. Hillary would unite us, and she could be defeated in 4 years; Giuliani would destroy the cohesion of the right wing.
Could we vote for a man who [was] right on every single issue, except that he was a racist? Or was a candidate who supported slavery? (Of course, he would never own his own slave, but he would defend any other white persons right to own his own Negro.) How then can we in good conscience vote for a man who supports the destruction of innocent human life, which is far worse than slavery or racism?
0 comments:
Post a Comment