Giuliani, Abortion and Common Ground

When conservatives look at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani there is much to be admired. He is a hero of 9/11, a noted federal prosecutor, and a two-term Republican mayor in an overwhelmingly Democratic city. In fact, USA Today reports he is momentarily the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for president.

Yet, there are glaring challenges the Giuliani campaign will need to overcome if he is to be successful in swaying Republican voters. I�m talking about his stand on social issues and in particular abortion.

Giuliani has honed his position on abortion over time, representing himself as "pro-choice" with the Mario Cuomo "personally opposed to abortion" amendment (I thought John Kerry wore that one out). He also enlisted former Rep. Jim Nussle, a known pro-life legislator, to be a leader on his presidential exploratory committee (LifeNews has more).

To be clear, however, Giuliani supports legalized abortion-on-demand.

In a recent letter to Jim Lowry, Nussle suggests that "perfect" has become the enemy of the �good� and disagreement with Giuliani on certain "issues" should not preclude conservatives from supporting him.

I find Nussle�s statements hollow, even shallow, because they raise a straw-man argument as the basis for backing Giuliani and implicitly assert that his support of abortion is not a reason to reject his candidacy for the nation�s top office.

Nussle writes,

I have chosen to support Mayor Giuliani because I believe we need to embrace the ideals and the values that unite us. It is the only way we can successfully move forward as both a Party and a country.

What about the dignity of human life and justice for the unborn? Aren�t these important "ideals" and "values" worthy of consideration? Or are the important ideals and values only those upon which we agree?

Considerable common ground can be found between Giuliani and most conservatives. Unfortunately, this is not enough. No candidate is perfect and will disappoint his or her constituents on any number of issues. However, there are a few principles that are foundational and must never be compromised despite profound agreement on other issues.

In his response to Nussle, the FRC�s Joe Carter gives a thoughtful explanation regarding the revelatory nature of a presidential candidate�s position on abortion:

I could not endorse anyone who fails on this key �litmus test.� Why would I hold a candidate responsible for an issue that isn't under their control? Because I am an unabashed single-issue voter -- and that issue is justice.

The justice I�m referring to is that which recognizes human dignity as the foundational principle of freedom and human flourishing.

[snip]

Because the State plays such a significant role in meting justice, we have a duty to elect politicians who have both a robust view of human dignity and the temerity to govern accordingly.

Read the rest

I appreciate and agree with Joe's subsequent application because he connects a candidate�s view of human dignity to both abortion and foreign policy ( If he has no qualms with infanticide in America, why should I believe he cares about the plight of infants in Darfur?) and thereby establishes why a candidate who supports child killing in the womb, or insincerely adopts a pro-life position on particular issues, lacks the necessary moral fiber to lead this country.

Despite his many accomplishments, Giuliani does not believe in justice for the unborn and is not a candidate worthy of the pro-life vote.