Posted on 02/22/2007 7:27:03 AM PST by 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.
Depends on what? If you don't believe in the God of the bible then you can decide for yourself I suppose, but if you decide wrong that God who you don't believe exists will have the final word on the subject. The reality or unreality of God is not something that depends on a person's belief or disbelief, so I hope you understand the consequences of choosing to believe the incorrect option. If my belief in the reality of God is incorrect it won't matter a whit when I die, but if your disbelief in the reality of God is incorrect it will be the only thing that will matter when you die.
About the same time when slavery was allowed?
Probably long before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was published, but what does slavery have to do with the legality or illegality of suicide? Anyway, since reading post # 349 I see that your mind is no doubt closed airtight on the abortion issue, so I will just bid you a good evening and avoid more pointless verbal jousting.
Probably. But I can live with four years of either one if that's what it takes to expunge the notion from the minds of otherwise sensible Republicans that if we would only nominate a liberal all of our politically oriented dreams would come true.
Time and time again it has been proven that conservative Republicans win at the national level and RINOs lose. I could be wrong of course, but I think that the truth of that maxim will once again be validated if Giuliani is nominated, and that would be a very good thing in the long run if the lesson is well taken.
That is not any different from what he said previously. Why would you falsely claim that?
The pregnant woman has the right to choose to have an abortion or to choose to have the baby. You can't say that it is a right to kill an embryo or a unborn baby as such. It is a right to choose not to continue being pregnant.
So if someone is elected to office, and swears to protect the Constitution and the Laws of the U.S., they are in essence in a position to protect a woman in her choice to have an abortion or a baby.
Now, the Oath of the Presidency to my knowledge doesn't have the "and the Laws of the U.S." in it. I do know that most law enforcement or judicial positions do have that provision in the Oath of Office. This is why I feel that when Rudy says he believes a woman has the right to choose, he is thinking more as one that would interpret and understand law. He is correct when he says a woman has the right to choose.
I am pro-life and feel the end to abortion will not come through a change in law, but a change in hearts and limiting access to the procedure itself. I suggest reading Access, an excellent publication of Life Dynamics:
http://www.lifedynamics.com/
Please point to the specific law or specific portion of the U.S. Constitution that gives a woman the "right" to choose to kill her unborn child. You invoked the "law" and the Constitution when you said that a woman has a right to choose to abort her child:
Registered said: "I think it's important to understand that ANYONE serving in a public office that is given the charge to defend the Constitution and the Laws of the United States can without bias say that a woman does have a right to choose. That is the law."But when challenged on your statement, you said that they are "in essence in a position to protect a woman in her choice to have an abortion or a baby." In essence?! Is that like a penumbra...or an emanation? Isn't that the kind of living constitution crap - precisely the same kind of crap - that a liberal would spout?!
Now, answer the question...Can you point to the actual law or the actual portion of the Constitution that gives women the "right" to kill their unborn child?
I am pro-life and feel the end to abortion will not come through a change in law, but a change in hearts and limiting access to the procedure itself. I suggest reading Access, an excellent publication of Life Dynamics:
Certainly, the end to abortion will be greatly prolonged if a pro-abortionist - even a pro partial birth abortion - Republican is nominated and the pro-life party is hijacked. If you truly want abortion to stop you need to stop providing cover for the pro-abortionist candidates and also stop beating on the conservative candidates and demoralizing their supporters.
You gun toters are all alike. You want to take away everyone else's rights even if it means using government to get your way, even if it breaks the law, even if it violates conservative beliefs, no matter what.
But you don't want to give up your guns, because you might need to protect yourselves from government meddling or intrusion.
You demand YOUR rights that are constitutionally protected, while using those same rights to ensure other people are trampled on, by the likes of you. The best part is that you're a man, and you really have no right (entitlement, authority, power) to make decisions for womankind. But here you are, hiding behind the constutition, rabble rousing on an hourly basis for weeks now.
The abortion debate is done. It's accepted by millions of Americans (that's why it HAS NOT CHANGED). Seek therapy before you make yourself insane. Eric Rudolph was not able to let go of the issue either, and look what happened to him.
"Yet Thomas Jefferson accepted that it is the Supreme Court of the United States- and only the Supreme Court- that decides what is and is not Constitutional. That is settled and a foundation of our system of Government."
So Thomas Jefferson is actually the one who made the determination on what the constitution means. On what basis and what gave him the authority to make that decision?
How about famous instances of the SCOTUS changing its mind? Today it is a right, tomorrow it is not?
It would be more proper to say that the SCOTUS has the task of determining how rights which exist independent of the court, or even the constitution, ought to be interpreted or applied, especially when rights of different parties seem to conflict.
In any case, it does not seem proper to say that the court creates a right, and it is readily apparent that it is sometimes wrong. Ask Dred Scott, or rather those affected by his case.
We have many rights not spelled out in the constitution, unless you lump them into the tenth amendment, perhaps, but the right to take the life of another is not one of them, regardless of judicial decision making on the matter.
I know what you're saying, but it's a silly, specious argument, based on an arbitrary threshold of development.
But if helps abortion pushers sleep at night...
"Gun toters?" Abortion "Rights?" Why are some of you people arguing so forcefully for the liberal Democrat positions?
Shaking head.
Since we're making ridiculous comparisons (you compared me to Eric Rudolph) let me throw one right back you.
Baby killers and their accomplices like you get off on the death and gore. Seek therapy before you make yourself insane. Krishna Rajanna was into abortion too, just like you, and look what happened to him. Birds of a feather...
Hmmmm...that was pointless. Just like your post.
But if helps abortion pushers sleep at night...
It may seem silly to some, but it is at the center of the entire legal & constitutional argument, so it's not wise or practical to just slough it off.
An unborn baby doesn't have a SS#, a born baby does. A born baby is physically separated from the mother, an unborn baby is physically connected to the mother.
There are many different valid ways of looking at it, and when that is the case, I believe government should err on the side of individual liberty.
I'm not pushing abortion, I'm pushing individual liberty and getting government out of our lives. Do you want President Hillary and a Democratic Congress writing and passing laws based on government-mandated moral codes and the moral shaping of society?
Don't worry, no one is going to pass a law that will interfere with your weenie-warming activities. Dang, reminds me of a vers that ends with "...but the righteous are bold as a lion."
I have a question for you Spiff. You obviously feel abortion is murder of an innocent human life. Why aren't you placing your physical body between these women and the abortionist? Why aren't you using physical restraint from allowing these murders to occur?
As I said, I've heard it all before. The unborn baby has distinct DNA from it's mother. It's a separate individual human being. All thresholds as to viability are capricious, due to ongoing medical advances, and arbitrary, having no solid philosophical/biological foundation.
"Individual liberty" has never encompassed the right to murder another, so I am absolutely comfortable with government protecting the right to life, foremost among our rights, of every human being. Given what we do and do not know, I also believe the government should err on the side of individual liberty, that of the most helpless and innocent.
Yeah, why the heck should we care if our government is OK with (and even subsidizes) ripping a million and a half small children per year?
In all seriousness, try getting a grip. A philosophical issue? Seems to me it's a scientific issue, since any moron who says a fetus isn't a child is as dumb as a person who really believes thunder is the sound of God bowling. Perhaps most ludicrous of all is the idea that war and immigration issues are lacking attention because of the abortion debate. Puh-leeze, like we can't fight a war, close a border and debate an issue at the same time.
Is that an incitement to violence or illegal activity? I thought that advocating violence or illegal activities wasn't allowed here on Free Republic.
Yep. She has the right to keep her legs together, or adopt the kid out. What she doesn't have is the right to make a small child suffer dismemberment because she didn't take the pill or because the pill didn't work, condom broke, etc.
The fetus is a human life. Acting as if it isn't is like forcing teachers to tell students that thunder is the sound of God bowling.
About 1.5% of all abortion patients report being victims of rape or incest, so the question is largely irrelevant. However, there is no reason a small child should have their limbs ripped off because some guy wanted to rape a woman, and no science that supports the contention that this helps her mental health, not that mental health is a justification for killing a little kid.
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.