Rudy Giuliani: [to SC Firefighters & Police] 'A Woman Has the Right to Choose Abortion'

Associated Press/Newsmax.com ^ | 2.22.07 | staff report

[meg88]

hursday, Feb. 22, 2007 8:13 a.m. EST

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

Reprint Information Hollywood Hates America Dick Morris: Don't Dare Criticize Hillary Cheney: McCain Is Wrong on Rumsfeld Bill Richardson: Obama Should Apologize Atheists Challenge Faith-Based Initiatives

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani met with firefighters and police officers in this early voting state Wednesday, using the forum to reference the Sept. 11 terror attacks, which earned him national attention.

"The first people that arrive on the scene of the bombing or the anthrax attack ... it's going to be one of your brothers or your sisters or you that gets to do it," the former New York mayor told a crowd of about 200 emergency workers. "Your ability to do it well will once again determine if we save lives - save America."

Giuliani compared firefighters and police to uniformed military personnel and said the federal Department of Homeland Security needs to ensure first responders "have the training and protection you need to defend your country."

Giuliani has a tough road ahead in South Carolina, which is to host the first Southern primaries in 2008. His moderate positions on gun control and support for abortion rights do not sit well with the state's Christian conservatives, who accounted for a third of the 2000 GOP primary vote. Those voters swung heavily to President Bush that year, giving him a 2-1 ratio margin over Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was viewed as soft on abortion.

Story Continues Below

On Wednesday, Giuliani reiterated his own position.

"I'd advise my daughter or anyone else not to have an abortion," Giuliani said. "I'd like to see it ended, but ultimately I believe that a woman has the right to choose.

"I believe that you've got to run based on who you are, what you really are and then people actually get a right to disagree with you," he said. "And I find if you do it that way, even people who disagree with you sometimes respect you."

Get Natural Energy And Strength Without Exercise?! Are You Guilty Of Exalting Evil? Lose 20 lbs w/ the Hoodia Diet Patch-Get 1 week Free Blast Away High Cholesterol: 67 Points in 28 days. Border Agent "Severely Beaten" in Prison! TheDietList® World's Largest Source Of Weight Loss Info Retire Overseas Live in Paradise.Free Report. Giuliani also said he's not concerned about a recent poll that showed rising numbers for Democratic opponents.

"We're a tremendous amount of time away from an election," he said. "We haven't even gotten to a primary yet. The best thing we can do now is organize."

© 2007 Associated Press.

[LtdGovt]

Apparently I misinterpreted nothing.

Good. I'll be more than happy to have this debate.

I was merely pointing out to you that your adoption of the position that it is permissable for the states to allow abortion is like saying that all guns should be held in the hands of only the military and the police, and the USA should just say, "To hell with national sovereignty . . "

This has to be the most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. The first requires a faithful reading of the Constitution, while the second would require us to jettison the Constitution. I see that you seek to encode your own policy preferences in the Constitution, because the ends justify the means. Well, you're wrong. That's the way the liberal judges thought, and look how that turned out to be.

machine guns for all, controlling our borders and making the evil, sordid & murderous business of abortion illegal (as it should be).

Machine guns for all? I haven't seen any calls to provide everyone with free machine gunes. As for abortion, most people favor overturning Roe and returning the matter to the states, not imposing conservative judicial activism on the country. So I'm afraid you're out of the mainstream on that one.

FR allows "devil's advocates" while DU does not. So more power to us, and what say, LtG--wanna do the "superiority strut"? ;^)

Certainly.

[Elsie]

Get Natural Energy And Strength Without Exercise?!

Are You Guilty Of Exalting Evil?

Lose 20 lbs w/ the Hoodia Diet Patch-

Get 1 week Free Blast Away High Cholesterol: 67 Points in 28 days.

Border Agent "Severely Beaten" in Prison!

TheDietList® World's Largest Source Of Weight Loss Info

Retire Overseas Live in Paradise.Free Report.

Ok........

[Elsie]

The woman does have a right to choose.

Then just let a woman CHOOSE to have her right arm removed.

It's her BODY; she has the 'right to choose' and it's just a piece of flesh.

Anyone doubt she'd be tossed in a loony bin for 'evaluation'???

[linda_22003]

Careful, just when you point out how things ARE, some idiot will come along and accuse you of advocating it's how things SHOULD be. People who do not care for reality don't like being reminded of reality, and will hold you responsible.

[linda_22003]

That was even faster than I thought. :)

[Elsie]

Under curent law a woman does have the right to choose to murder her baby.

WRONG!!!

She has the PRIVILEGE!!!

[tumblindice]

OK.
Here's Roe V. Wade:
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

and here's the US Constitution:
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

Would you direct me to the (penumbral) "right of privacy" upon which the majority based its decision in Roe?

[LtdGovt]

Uhm, my position has remained consistent, no matter what your interpretation might be. Here's my position:

1. Roe v. Wade is bad law.
2. There are a lot of grounds on which Roe can be overturned, some of which Alito and Roberts subscribe to.
3. You end up supporting my point, that Hunter's requirement - for the justices to affirm the humanity of fetuses - would ultimately lead to judicial activism, namely, the overturning of liberal abortion laws.
4. My opinion is as follows: it should be up to the states to determine its policy regarding unborn life and abortion, not up to the court. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Court to make determinations about unborn life and impose them on the states.

I think you really weaken your own case against judicial activism, when it you reveal that you only actually suppport activism when you agree with the result. I'm sorry to say, cause you seem really friendly.

[colorado tanker]

I don't think Rudy will maintain his big lead in the polls once people hear this.

[LtdGovt]

Oh, and that's just plain bullshit.

If that ever happens (it won't), we'll bet a few thousand dollars on it, okay?

[Elsie]

Shout it from the rooftops!

---

"But we have forgotten God.

We have forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace,

and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us;

and we have vainly imagined,

in the deceitfulness of our hearts,

that all these blessings were produced

by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own."

-- Abraham Lincoln

[LtdGovt]

This is just an outdated argument of the Left. Virtually everywhere in America, any woman (including victims of rape) can get morning-after drugs to stop a pregnancy. In fact, they work very similarly to being on the Pill.

All the better. In any case, if the morning-after-pill is administered too late, or the hospital does not provide the services, then abortion should be allowed.

[George W. Bush]

sitetest to LtdGovt:

Dear LtdGovt,

"And it would be a blatant act of judicial activism that would probably result in a constitutional amendment being passed allowing abortion-on-demand."

Oh, and that's just plain xxxxxxx nonsense.

;-)


sitetest

Sorry, your local FReeper bluenose ratted on you. Let's not turn our family-friendly forum into a potty-mouthed D.U. Go look over there sometime and I think you'll agree.

[LtdGovt]

You are confusing law with right. Despite what many have forgotten, a law can be wrong, immoral, poorly crafted, etc.

I'm not going to argue about this nonsense. A bad law is still the law. And rights afforded by a regime, are still legal rights - even though you might not think that anyone has the moral right to do so. And as for the arguments that cities don't have rights, government entities most certainly do have rights.

[Campion]

Now I don't know about you, but I find that to be disgusting.

But executing an innocent child for the crime of her father ... you're okay with that.

But rape is a red herring anyway. Ban every abortion that's not the result of rape, and you've banned 98% or more of them. That's a fine start.

[ichabod1]

What do you think of abortion in cases of rape?

It's not the child's fault.

[LtdGovt]

If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I was not arguing for Roe, I was arguing against some post who claimed that the Constitution actually prevents states from enacting liberal abortion laws - which is a blatant falsehood.

[George W. Bush]

Whatever it is, Giuliani is on the pro-abort side all the way.

And Giuliani has the benefit of scientific knowledge on fetal development that the Roe Court didn't have. And certainly we have a great variety of more reliable birth control and even morning-after birth control for cases of rape and incest.

No, he's just inexcusable on abortion. Great post, Liz.

[Fawn]

and laws or not...it will always be that way. Good or bad.....it will always be a choice. Even if Roe Wade is overturned....what are they going to do about that Morning after pill? Unfortunatly, this abortion topic is moot.

[LtdGovt]

But executing an innocent child for the crime of her father ... you're okay with that.

Talking about punishing people for other people's crimes, I could make the exact same charge.

But rape is a red herring anyway. Ban every abortion that's not the result of rape, and you've banned 98% or more of them. That's a fine start.

I'm rather uncomfortable with the 'fine start'-part. That does make it seem as if you would want abortions in cases of rape, too.