Posted on 11/14/2006 1:51:18 PM PST by DCBandita
The announcement by McCain, who has put together campaign organizations in many of the states with early nominating contests, was widely expected. The intentions of Giuliani, who has been less active in early organizing, had been less clear.
Giuliani's campaign team said the committee was simply an opening move designed to keep his options open, with a final decision still to come.
"This filing affords him the opportunity to raise money and put together an organization to assist him in making his decision," Giuliani adviser Anthony Carbonetti said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
>And I have also said I don't believe a fetus is a PERSON<
Ok, at what point in gestation does a fetus become a person? Read the excerpt below and tell me why the boy in the quote below is any more deserving of life than a 24 week gestational boy who has not yet been born:
http://www.prematurity.org/baby/hardly-believe.html
"Judy invited me to stand at the bedside of one of the five or six infants in the pod. It was a boy. He was curled up tight on his elbows and knees, the red oximeter light on his foot bathing his tiny, wrinkled rear end in an otherworldly glow. Balled up like he was, I figured he was about the size of a cantaloupe, maybe smaller. Judy said he had been born at twenty-four weeks gestation and was now about two weeks old."
The debt started and has been rising since FDR.
Catholic doctrine is not aganist the death penalty. It is not aganist war. Another misunderstanding by the secular left and the MSM.
Neither could I, until I had a friend faced with the awful choice of having one.
She found out at 5 or 6 months that her baby had an abnormality that was causing the brain not to develop. Moreover, there was some kind of encephaly (is that where the head swells?) that was causing the mother to be endangered. The baby was alive and would remain alive with the life-support of the mother, but would die moments after birth. There was also some risk given the growth of the head, though I don't know if it was considered life-threatening.
The doctors told her she could carry it to term and deliver it to die or have the procedure. It was an awful choice for her - but she chose the procedure.
I don't generally advocate it - but would you take it away from someone in this circumstance?
Generally, hmmm? In what ways are you a socialist?
I read your first post and saw CHOICE in great big letters and knew what was going to happen. Skipped 400 posts ahead and there you are defending abortion. What, run out of batteries for this evening?
I don't know what you are worried about. Wasn't there a very recent courtcase in VA where a judge ruled that a woman who shot herself in the stomach and murdered her (9th month?) baby was legally entitled to do so? You really think that anything will change this warped mindset?
I think you lefties like to scream "religious right" because it gets the wackos all worked up and makes a good soundbite.
And, please, don't rehash how you're really a moderate. I find elitists argue this the loudest. Hey, even Pelosi is a farmer - she has her own vineyard.
So who determines what principles are "lived" and what principles are "legislated"?
For example: we have laws about progressive income taxes. Where did those laws come from? Wasn't it somebody's belief? Somebody's principles? If someone believed that wealth should be re-distributed, why couldn't they just "live their principles"?
What about slavery? It was legislated as illegal only when a majority of people acted on their beliefs, their principles. This was not always the case, not just in America but throughout human history. There was many a time when "63%" of the people thought slavery was an acceptable "choice".
So why is abortion so unique to you? You have your "principles" about what you call "choice". I have my principles about what I call murder of innocent unborn life. We both try to influence as many people as possible to understand and respect our principles. Legislators are supposed to represent our principles.
Do you not find abortion reprehensible? Would you be willing to watch a video with all the details? Do you believe that we know everything there is to know about the formation of life? Do we have absolute certainty?
What is the term "choice" supposed to represent? Choice for who? Choice for the unborn? Choice of adoption versus a family addition? Or is it the ultimate selfish "choice" that is convenient for a woman or man who cannot get past their own "principles" long enough to put the life of an innocent child first?
Do you know how many abortions are performed annually? Approx 1.0 - 1.6 million annually, every year since 1975. That means over 40 million unborn children have been murdered in the past 30 years alone. Don't even try to dismiss this with your strawman questions like "if your child was raped, would you let her have an abortion"? What percentage of the 40 million were convenience, and what percentage was rape or incest?
It's easy for you to ignore these questions...let's see if you can tackle the issue head on. You came here looking for answers...or just what you want to hear?
Now you're getting silly Bandita. I favor conception, it helps perpetuate the species so to speak.
Because your continuum exists at a far earlier point than my continuum does. You have science to back yours up, I have science to back mine up.
LOL, you have no science to back up your odd notions. Science is clear, a new human organism is created at the completion of the conceptus. There is no scientific debate about that. There is, of course, the irrational Luddite like comments made by some equating their dandruff to new and unique human life. But folks who make that argument just belie and incredible ignorance of the science involved, equating organs to organisms. You don't fall into that category I hope.
I haven't moved from anything, actually. The fact that morality is relative is precisely the reason it can't be legislated.
Nonsense. You stated unequivocally that politicians should not "legislate morality". I stated unequivocally that that is nonsense, all laws have moral components. I challenged you to name ONE law that did not have a moral component. You demurred as so many have in the past because you can not name one law that doesn't have somebody's morality at it's base.
There are absolutes and those are which the society agrees on almost to a person. For example, most people would consider it a moral absolute that I am not permitted to hit you over the head and take your wallet. This law, the one that prohibits me from stealing your wallet, is universally accepted and one which you don't see opposition groups springing up to overturn (e.g., it's not viably in dispute). I would consider that an absolute.
A better example of absolute morality would be Nazi Germany where society decided that Jews were verboten, subhuman so to speak, or as some would say "nothing". Again you took a pass at answering the question I posed. That's OK as long as you think about it though.
Abortion does not fit that category. I find it curious that some of the commenters in this thread would like to see the issue turned back to the states. My equal protection issues aside, I would wager that the pro-life set would be roundly unhappy with the outcome of submitting it to public referendum as those that feel abortion should be illegal are decidedly a minority.
Oyvey. You are sadly mistaken. Most here at FR are federalists believing that these issues belong to the states. I am in the minority there because I believe the constitution states quite simply in the 5th and 14th Amendments that the right to life is a federal issue. What we all agree on is that judicial fiat stinks and it is a blight on the republic, poisoning the public square and inflaming the culture wars for decades.
I believe that I can beat you in a public debate on abortion and I want that chance but as it stands the robes have decided that they sit on the throne of public morality and legislate same from the bench. Have you seen anything allowing judges to legislate in your copy of the constitution?
Where will the moderates be when the Dems send out troops into another feel good has nothing to do with national security war to stop the genocide in Sudan. Will the moderate here support that killing.
Will Bandita support a waiting period on abortion,free speech, religous freedom. I doubt it. Why should we have prior restraint on the 2nd amendment. A right delayed is a right denied. You can not falsely yell fire in the theater but we do not tape your mouth shut for 3 days to keep you from doing so.
If CNN and the ladies on "The View" tell them to, they will.
How arrogant of you. No, his exact words were "gathering storm" and somewhere in there his National Security Advisor referenced a mushroom cloud.
You can't seriously still be defending the march to war on the basis of WMDs. Even your own party has abandoned that line, and rightfully so. You simply can't defend a mistake, and, unlike other Dems, I believe it just that - a mistake - rather than a willfull lie.
It is a delta function measure. Sure if the absolute debt is rising as a percentage of GNP, that is a problem, but now it is falling a bit, after rising some, to finance the defense build up and the Iraq war, and terrorism, etc, and of course coming soon, Bush's horrific drug perscription plan.
What do moderate Dems have to say about the medical subsidy black hole? Yes, Pubbies are not interested in dealing with that one either, but whatever. And how about the Dem interest in looting drug companies, truncating drug research? What is the moderate Dem plan there? I have the very clever Torie plan, if I may say so myself, which would help some, but it has attracted next to zero interest, even on this very forum. That is to require drug companies to charge in the US the same as they charge in Europe and Japan, where they charge less due to the monopsonistic buyer. That would end the drug research subsidy which benefits Europe and Japan, for which US drug consumers largely foot the bill.
Cheers. By the way, I am sorry to hear you are 40. That's old man! You fooled me, but good.
EXACTLY!! And when you make abortion illegal, you enforce YOU brand of morality on ME.
I realize that wasn't your original point, but you made mine quite nicely.
Darnright, while I appreciate the link and your tone (which is respectful), I find that link and organization to be propaganda at best.
"If he goes against 2nd Amendment positions then he's done"
Problem is, he will have 6 years to promote the democrats agenda while he marches in lockstep.
The man would make an excellent SecDef or Sec/ State or UN Ambassador, but you cannot be in favor of setting back and letting judges rewrite a culture's basic values through usurpation of the legislative process and expect to win the GOP nomination. It isn't acceptable, and I'm a fairly big-tent Republican.
And now I have a question for you: My son just came back from Iraq (4, yes four deployments). He was not very political before going. Now he says that Democrats are selfish back-stabbers and he'll never vote for a Democrat as long as he lives. How would you suggest the Democrats proceed in winning him back?
What a ridiculous assertion. Please read the US Consitution, with special attention to the powers of the Executive Branch. Then we can have a discussion.
From Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995. "This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society.Regarding war:
The most consistent and frequent promoter of peace and human rights for the last two decades has been Pope John Paul II. From Iraqi War I to Iraqi War II, he has echoed the voice of Paul VI, crying out before the United Nations in 1965: War No More, War Never Again! John Paul II stated before the 2003 war that this war would be a defeat for humanity which could not be morally or legally justified.But what do I know?
Not much about Catholic dogma vis a vis the death penalty and just war doctrine I'm afraid.
I notice that you call it "the Choice issue" and not "Abortion." If you can't say it, how can you support it?
I am not a religious person. I consider myself an agnostic, at best, but I recognize that killing an unborn human (without his consent) is the same as killing a living human (without his consent) or killing a dying human (without his consent.)
I've not read forward through this thread too far, but I'm guessing that your "general" support for gun rights extends far enough to allow certain guns for hunting. When you find the "hunting" clause in the second amendment, you let me know.
Liberal democrat or moderate democrat, it doesn't matter. Either way, you have a basic ignorance of the intent of the founders of this country and the dangerous implications of the positions your party take on matters important to this country's existence.
The same goes for both Rudy and McCain. Neither will get my vote.
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.