Rudy Giuliani: 'A Woman Has the Right to Choose' Abortion

NewsMax ^ | Feb 22, 2007 | NewsMax.com Staff

[Reagan Man]

By some estimates there are 20,000-40,000 gun control laws on the books in America today. Most are local and state laws, but there are many federal laws that exist and infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms. Giuliani wants even more gun control, to include an assault weapons ban. The 2ND amendment is crystal clear.

".... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

Rudy talks out both sides of his mouth on most issues, including abortion rights and right to keep and bear arms. He's pretty good at it too. He's already hoodwinked many people into supporting him, before they've had an opportunity to fully understand his liberal record.

Nowhere in the plain words of the Constitution does it say anything about a woman having a right to kill her unborn child. NOWHERE!

Some see abortion as an issue for the states. I think its a federal issue, directly spoken about in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life, life, life..... Its' all about life!

[pgkdan]

GIULIANI: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it.

Were I posting Mr. Giuliani's comment I'd highlight it as follows...

GIULIANI: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it.

[LtdGovt]

Yep, if true, which I don't blieve your "assertion" that majority support it the first trimester, take your PP talking points elswhere (with respect to you)!

Any fact that is undesirable to you is a 'PP talking point'? (In fact, about 2/3 of Americans support legal first-trimester abortions.) What's PP anyway?

[JSDude1]

Prove it,..btw you know fully well I mean Planned Parenthood! -Take Care.

[LtdGovt]

Yeah, what's the problem? There is no inconsistency between that and what he says in this article. It's not as if there is an obligation to repeat every single word of what you have said, you just should not contradict yourself.

[George W. Bush]

But Rudy is openly pro-abortion here and his statement contradicts what he said in the past. So how can we trust him overall the other issues then?

We need to leave room for our candidates to grow and to repent bad choices earlier in their career. Reagan, for instance, signed the pivotal '68 abortion bill in CA. And he didn't repent and come out as a pro-lifer until 1976, a year before his run for the GOP nomination.

Rudy won't repent his error and I think he is proud of his 'noble' stand for women. He is a secular liberal. And that's one reason why his personal life is such a mess. As for his successes in NYC, one can simply observe that he was a practical and law-and-order liberal, generally more competent that the full blown loonies the Dims offer the voters there.

[showme_the_Glory]

We don't have to accept liberal Rudy. There are other options. This fellow may be the best one:

I'm on board.

[George W. Bush]

No one has a right to end life...what about wars?

Good grief, how can you have a sign-up date that old and still ask such an ignorant question, couched in the logic of the Left?

[hellbender]

"Are you saying that a majority of Americans has no respect for human life?"

Apparently they don't, or they have been misled about what a so-called "fetus" is. The majority of Americans are very poorly informed about many issues. After all, about half the electorate voted for Kerry and Gore; you can't get much dumber and more immoral than that.

Real statesmen don't follow polls; they lead the people.

[LtdGovt]

Prove it,..

My guess is, that no matter what evidence I provide, you still will not be convinced. Before you start screaming about the fact that this was a CNN poll, let me mention that the same poll showed voters favoring banning abortions in the last 3 months of the pregnancy with 89%.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Thinking more generally: Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy? How about [see below]?"

In the first three months of the pregnancy:
Legal 66%
Illegal 29%
Depens (vol.) 3%
Unsure 2%

btw you know fully well I mean Planned Parenthood! -Take Care.

I did not know, I advise you not to try to look into the heads of other people, and thank you.

[dirtboy]

Um I hate to say this but you weren't exactly a die-hard Rudy supporter But we Rudy Supporters don't intend to change at this point.

I guess you were Picard to their Borg, EEE.

[Centurion2000]

Let's see ..... anti-life, and a gun control freak.

If the GOP nominates him for Pres they are dead in the water.

[MortMan]

"I'd like to see it ended, but ultimately I believe that a woman has the right to choose."

An american doesn't have the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms [paraphrase].

One of these IS in the constitution, and one isn't. Rudy is wrong on both counts.

[Reagan Man]

At one time, it went something like this.

The right to own slaves is supported by a substantial majority of voters because it is right and it is fair, even though people in the north think its sad.

And we all know hown that turned out. Right?

If you think abortion on demand is a right found in the Constitution, then you agree with the 1973 decision of the liberal SCOTUS. Opposing Roe v Wade is a matter of personal conscience and natural law.

J. Byron White and J. William Rehnquist opposed the Roe v Wade decision.

J.White wrote:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

[Sloth]

His moderate positions on gun control

NewsMax using the MSM definition of 'moderate'?!

[hellbender]

"I'd like to see it ended, but ultimately I believe that a woman has the right to choose."

Would the Great Crime Fighter make the same statement about murder, or even about graffiti and squeegee men?

Besides, Rudy's statement is effectively the same as Bubba Clinton's "I want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare." It's a piece of liberal sophistry.

[Sloth]

No honest debater uses the expression "a woman's right to choose."

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

No one has a right to end life...what about wars?

Depends on the justness of the war and the rules of engagement agreed to by both sides. Perhaps I should have said, no one has a right to take innocent life. You cannot compare abortion to that. The child did nothing wrong and is not a threat to anyone. The exception is if the life (not mental health) of the mother is at risk.

[hellbender]

"When are you guys ever going to learn that people don't like to be told what they can and can not do?"

How absurd. All civilized societies have laws telling people what they can't do. We don't let people "choose" murder, for example.

[Arthur McGowan]

If you are for the principle that people should not be told what to do, then you are in favor of legalizing everything. You must, logically, support legalizing slavery, bank robbery, fraud, etc., because in all these cases, making these activities illegal is "telling people what to do." It also infringes on their right to choose.