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.

[xzins]

Before or after pregnancy?

[Swordfished]

I expect he viewed abortion, at least if he could have seen the scale it would one day be practiced on, as a far, far worse evil than slavery ever was.

when talking about rights of individuals, slavery is much, much worse than abortion IMO. a slave is aware of the injustice to him and living out the injustice, an aborted child wasn't ever aware of their injustice.

now, if talking about societal evil, then yes, abortion could be considered on par with slavery, but it certainly isn't relative to the individual involved.

[Registered]

Why can't you recognize that in the United States our law allows for a woman to choose to abort her baby? Rudy said he is against it, but also acknowledges the law allowing it, when he says he believes "a woman has the right to choose". That is sad but true.

He has said he would "Like to see it ended". So really, the question to ask him is, "do you consider it settled law?". The answer to that would be interesting.

[nina0113]

Giuliani should have run against her for the Senate because he CANNOT win in a national election. New York State is so liberal that his position on abortion does not matter there. It does out here in the "other" America.

If any pro-abort candidate wins the Republican nomination, which I think unlikely, he will still not win the general election. I can get on board behind a candidate who doesn't agree with me on many issues, but not that one, and there are many others who feel the same way. We'll vote third-party or stay home (I'd take the first option myself).

[Swordfished]

Rudy realizes that, in the 21st century, laws do not stop abortion, persuasion is the only way.

exactly...and God sorts out the good and the bad people.

now could we just have all our liberty back?

[TalonDJ]

You know that it's a poor comparison, unless you're blinded by emotion.

That is nonsense. Either it is a child or it is not. My argument is that, if it is considered a human life then no one at all has a right to kill it out of 'feelings'. Explain how you think I am 'blinded by emotions'. This is straight forward logic.

You have no right to put your gun against a woman's head (figuratively) and force her to carry a rapist's child.

The only difference between that and 'forcing her' to carry the child of an abusive husband or boyfriend is the rape. And the unborn child could care less how it was formed. And the circumstances of it's conception do not invalidate its life. The presents of a rape here seems to have you 'blinded by emotions'.

[George W. Bush]

But I don't like the idea of you, or anyone else, forcing a rape victim to carry the child unto birth. She should be able to decide for herself.

And where in this country does she not have the ability to get morning-after contraception? And, given that, why should she get the right to wait until the end of the pregnancy to change her mind and abort the 'tissue'?

Why does a child's right to life depend on how the mother feels about that child on any given day during the pregnancy?

[ichabod1]

If you want our vote you'd better find us somebody we can vote for instead of trying to shove warmed over liberalism and culture-of-death down our throats.

[linda_22003]

At this point, you're perfectly free to get a social-conservative candidate the nomination through the primary process. People seem to be more focused on the "threat" of Rudy than doing that, though.

[ichabod1]

it could not be answered whether the unborn child was really a human being. (snip)

Mr. Hunter's point is that the unborn child clearly IS a human being, and that this is apparent when looking at a sonogram. Thus, a necessary premise of Roe is vitiated, and thus it should be overturned.

This falls under that grand Supreme Court legal doctrine of "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

[rhombus]

If you want our vote you'd better find us somebody we can vote for instead of trying to shove warmed over liberalism and culture-of-death down our throats.

We? Who the heck is we? I'm supposed to find you somebody? Get out there and find your own hero.

[MEGoody]

No. That was the Declaration of Independence.

You're right. Sorry.

Nevertheless, the right to life is primary. Without life, all other 'rights' are non-existent.

So the fact remains, laws which legalize the taking of innocent human life are violations of the rights on which this country was founded. Therefore, a strict constructionist would be in favor of outlawing abortion.

[sitetest]

Dear LtdGovt,

"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. "

No, I don't.

It certainly must lead to overturning Roe.

It could possibly lead to more than that.

However, under your interpretation of the Constitution, it could not. Even admitting the humanity of unborn children, you believe does not permit the Court construing the Constitution to ban abortion, as a judicial fiat.

So you are assuming that Mr. Hunter's justices will go further than you do based on the same evidence.

It's an assumption on your part that isn't logically required. And when you make like it is logically required, then you're typing out of both sides of your keyboard.

"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 never said:

- what my own interpretation of the Constitution might be vis-a-vis whether or not the fact of the humanity of unborn children requires banning abortion;

- whether I think that such a judicial act would be a good idea.

Rather, I said that I think that the case could be made for such a judicial ruling. It is certainly easier to make the case that an appropriate interpretation of the Constitution would BAN abortion rather than BAN laws restricting abortion.

However, if I do believe that the Constitution is best construed to require legal protection of unborn children, then obviously, it wouldn't be judicial activism, in my view, for the Court to rule in such a way. It would be strict constructionism.

Which is kind of the point with Mr. Giuliani. He believes that there is a right to abortion. A constitutional right for a woman to procure the killing of her unborn child. He believes that the Constitution is rightly construed in affirming such a "right."

Thus, for him, "strict constructionism" could easily include upholding Roe.


sitetest

[nina0113]

People seem to be more focused on the "threat" of Rudy than doing that, though.

Only on this thread. At the moment, I'm planning to support Hunter. I'm waiting to see how he responds to his "macaca moment" - you know there'll be one! - before I commit any time or money.

[MEGoody]

You don't get to decide what's best for women.

Laws decide what is best for society. American seems to be suffering a bit of multiple personality disorder in this area. Murder is against the law - unless the one being murdered is an innocent, unborn child. Then murder is termed 'choice.'

Are you in favor of people having the choice to murder? If not, then you would seem to be suffering from MPD.

[LtdGovt]

I don't agree with that. Before Roe v Wade there were plenty of states that outlawed abortion, and we didn't need a "federal law" to state that. IOW, the States, before Roe v Wade, didn't need "affirmation" from the Feds. The same would be true if Roe v Wade were overturned, or at least severely curtailed. Like I said, there would probably still be some states where abortion would still be legal, but at least it wouldn't be the entire country, which is a step in the right direction. Again, it would at least make it easier to combat abortion on the state level.

You're ignoring the glaring fact that the pro-choice majority will be galvanized by such an event. Right now, they can rest on their laurels, since the Supreme Court is guaranteeing the right to have an abortion. But once Roe is overturned, they will actually have to fight for their abortion rights.

Just a wild guess: I think that several states will outlaw abortion completly, 15-25 states will enact more restrictions on the practice, and that the backlash will cause the rest of the states to elect a pro-choice majority that will retain generally available abortions, or even abolish restrictions on the practice.

I'm not sure what amendment you are refering to here, that the Court should "ignore". However, as far as states passing constitutional amendments permitting abortion, I seriously doubt that would happen in too many states, but where it would, since those number of states would be even less than states that would simply permit abortion by law, it would then be even easier to confine abortion to even fewer states.

Some person on this thread said that the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench and just outlaw abortion. I responded by asking what it should do if the Congress & the state pass a fed. constitutional amendment allowing abortion. Should they ignore that amendment too?

By the way, I believe Maryland has encoded Roe v. Wade and a parental notification law in its constitution.

The rest of your story is rather fanciful. I don't see how you make the leap from 50 states allowing abortion, to 50%, to 2 or 3 states. I believe you made a mistake in believing that only the states putting Roe in their constitution would ultimately still allow abortion.

[Past Your Eyes]

I guess since babies don't vote, their lives are expendable. One crime against humanity is expunged by another. Okeydoke.

[linda_22003]

Could well be! It will be interesting to see how the primaries play out, and who we'll even get a chance to vote for, depending on where we live.

[sitetest]

Dear George W. Bush,

I seldom use words like that on Free Republic.

However, sometimes, you gotta tell the truth about things.

I stand by my post.


sitetest

[LtdGovt]

Giuliani should have run against her for the Senate because he CANNOT win in a national election.

I disagree with you. He might have trouble winning the nomination, but the general election will be a cakewalk. Especially against Hillary.