Posted on 04/05/2007 4:41:48 PM PDT by Zack Nguyen
Yeah, I posted to you b4 reading the full thread. sorry.
Are you joking? You don't understand why conservative Republicans are angry at Giuliani for being a pro-abortion lefty? Sure, he's not lying about his abortion stance, but he's lying through his teeth about being a 'conservative'. Can you say RINO? It's not like he can conceal it with lies anyway; it's been his stand since he's been a politician. As a mayor his pro-abortion stand probably had little consequence, but as a President who could install SCOTUS justices his stand could have devestating results.
In all liklihood Republicans are pissed off at Giuliani because if he were a real conservative instead of a RINO he'd make a great leader with his fine leadership skills. But what good are excellent leadership skills if you're a liberal and a callous man who believes killing babies in the womb is a Constitutional right? Slavery was once a constitutional right too, but those who were 'personally opposed to it' were willing to fight and die to stop it. Giuliani is obviously not willing to try to reverse Roe v Wade if elected President, so he's a complete fraud when he says he "hates abortion". On domestic issues Giuliani is Bill Clinton with balls, but even a pair of balls wouldn't have made Clinton a good man, and they won't make Giuliani a good President.
“Why do you look to a politician to solve problems of the soul?”
Because bad judges appointed by politicians created the main problem in the first place, and the only way to solve the problem (the bad law of roe v wade) is for good politicians to appoint good judges.
I respect your opinion, and am confident that we will change hearts on this issue. Yet I believe that the existence of elective abortion violates not only our founding documents, but the entire reason for God's gift of government. Government's most fundamenta lpremise is to protect life. That is why I will work legislatively, just as my brothers and sisters work in crisis pregnancy clinics.
It may be that you and I don't really disagree.
Are you telling me there were no abortions before Row v Wade?
When I see this statement it makes me laugh. If it's not government's role to decide that abortion is wrong, then why did they say it was wrong before Roe v Wade? And if they don't belong in the equation at all then why are they interjecting their power into the issue by making it legal? There is no government neutrality on abortion, they have taken a stance and are enforcing their position with the full power of the law by making it a Constitutional "right". Why are people so damn dense today?
Fair enough,---"
See # 6 below.
oops, that’s # 26.
There were no legal abortions before Roe, because the government determined it was wrong to kill babies in the womb. Since Roe, the federal government has deemed it a Constitutional "right", and ordered all the States to allow abortions.
I was actually asking a rhetorical question, because I think I know why Republicans were so upset, and why Giuliani attempted to backtrack so quickly. The Washington establishment is lining up behind Giuliani, and when he lets slip that he is in favor of taxpayer funded abortion, it gives the game away. Washington Republicans want him to finesse the issue so that they won’t have to answer embarrassing question back home about why they don;t care about a core Republican issue.
“Are you telling me there were no abortions before Row v Wade?”
What’s row v wade? Were those washignton’s choices on how to cross the delaware? :)
Just kidding. No, before Roe V wade, it was, at it should have been, a state’s rights issue. They had the power under the constitution to determine abortion policy.
To modify your question, were there more abortions performed per year before or after roe v wade was passed?
Politicians who say they "personally" oppose abortion but still want it legal are in fact, still pro-abortion. It also reveals their character, and can't be trusted on the other issues as well.
Comparing abortion to booze, gambling, porn, etc. is apples and oranges.
I consider myself a Libertarian, but I believe that abortion should not be legal or government-approved.
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” - Henry David Thoreau
Rooty needs striking.
MANY eagle-eyed Conservatives were astute to that concept of the human "heart" long ago while many others chose blinders only because Giuliani had "popularity".
We've still a ways to go and Rudy has plenty more of his tangles unraveling before him.
We now get a better snapshot of his view on "strict constructionists".
Yes but if you follow that reasoning too far, someone’s bound to ask why we need laws against murder. The govt does legislate morality all the time, passing laws against moral choices that result in harm to others.
I’m from a libertarian background, and I’m also uneasy about drug laws and prohibitions of gambling and such like. But abortion has a consequence of death to a living human being. And if that weren’t enough, there’s the slippery slope argument, which has been settled to my satisfaction over the past few decades: diminished respect for the life of the unborn leads to diminished respect for the next defenseless category, and the next and the next.
From a Christian perspective I agree with you that morality springs from the individual heart, and is not imposed from above. But neither did Jesus suggest that we do away with temporal authority.
I became a conservative when I realized that the defenseless need government, and the world’s a jungle in which anyone may find himself defenseless against a stronger person or a treacherous one, who won’t be swayed by an appeal to their nonexistent conscience.
Abortion should be illegal. You can still fight it one heart at a time, you’ll just have fewer fights, and a lot fewer dead babies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.