Posted on 02/22/2007 8:58:34 AM PST by Reagan Man
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.
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."
Many people who revere the original Constitution are appalled at how the 14th Amendment, as carried to bizarre extremes by the courts, has extinguished state sovereignty.
Relevant to the original point of this thread might be this: Does any citizen has the right to "choose" to deprive another human being of life (and thereby of every other freedom), just because they are unborn?
We now know from ultrasound and other evidence how trivial birth is, compared to other events in life. There must be hundreds of thousands of people walking around who were born prematurely. One might ask why their shrivelled, grotesque little bodies were not thrown out like aborted fetuses? After all, it's not convenient or cheap to keep a severely premature infant alive. Does someone's value or right to live depend entirely on the will of someone more powerful?
We're all likely to be infirm, decrepit, and dependent someday. Would you like your life to depend on whether someone else finds you "convenient" to have around, or would you rather stick with the Judeo-Christian belief that all human life is sacred? This is not a small issue, it is not a "single issue." It goes to the heart of what civilization is.
Fair point:
• Roughly three quarters of likely voters (77 percent) agree that the government and politicians should stay out of a woman’s personal and private decision whether or not to have an abortion.
• 61 percent of voters disapprove when they hear Congress has voted 145 times in the last 10 years to restrict reproductive-health services, including abortion and birth control.
• Eight out of 10 voters agree that Americans are tired of divisive attacks over the issue of abortion and want their leaders to support real solutions to prevent unintended pregnancies.
• Two-thirds of voters disapprove of the laws, such as the one passed in South Dakota and Louisiana that would ban abortion in nearly all circumstances, even for victims of rape and incest or women whose health is at risk.
• 65 percent of voters feel less favorable toward candidates who support allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions.
• 61 percent of voters feel more negative toward a candidate who opposes making emergency contraception available in emergency rooms for rape and incest victims.
Choice And that's all I need to say.
Would you agree then, that the ending of a life is actually relative to the situation?
Your tag line is very appropriate on this thread.
I think G.K. was actually a bit off the mark on this one, at least given the current popular understanding of tolerance. Today, tolerance is the virtue of the man who lacks the courage to fight evil.
Tolerance is the last refuge of a coward.
Isn't God capable of all things? Even those that may not make sense to us humans?
Maybe 90% of people in Pakistan think it's OK to stone women to death for being accused of adultery...74% of people in Baluchistan think it's fine for people to be executed for being gay....and reportedly 99.9% of people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea think Kim Jong Il is the greatest leader in human history, and the source of all good.
So what?
Since when do conservatives base their positions and values on idiotic polls?
Then you should do some research. It is pretty well-known that support for legal first-trimester abortions is great, and no amount of bickering about polls can change that.
For starters, Roe V Wade was the pivotal point in history when it came to the abortion issue. That is when Americans made up their minds and decided to be pro-life or pro-choice. What Reagan biographer Lou Cannon wrote may not matter to you, however, to pro-lifers what Cannon wrote does matter.
What Ronald Reagan wrote in his own hand, matters even more. Although it was written in 1975, Reagan was referencing his personal struggle with the abortion issue during the 1967-1968 time frame. In an April 1975 radio address Reagan said:
"Eight years ago when I became Gov. I found myself involved almost immediately in a controversy over abortion. It was a subject I'd never given much thought to and one upon which I didn't really have an opinion."
Reagan went onto say, he did extensive research on abortion and "I did more studying & soul searching then on any thing that was to face me as Gov".
"I know there will be disagreement with this view but I can find no evidence whatsoever that a fetus is not a living human being with human rights."
These Reagan quotes can be found on pages 380-385 of the book, "Reagan In His Own Hand". Once again, clearly Reagan was referring to his opinion on the abortion issue from the 1967-1968 time frame, when he was Governor of California. If you choose not to believe Reagan, so be it. I trust what Reagan said.
"They do have the right to do anything they want to do, as long as they don't harm others. It's called freedom, and the United States was a society based on that concept."
Try reading the Federalist Papers, or numerous documents the Founders wrote during the debates about the Constitution. There's nothing there remotely comparable to "a right to do anything they want to do, as long as they don't harm others." The Founders were not ideological absolutists, or purveyors of simplistic, abstract belief systems.
I don't offer slogans. I offer the Constitution. You offer only slogans which sounds like they came from someone with a mental age somewhere below 20. I'm sure most FReepers would agree with me on that.
Of course government should be limited. It IS limited.
Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Rudy G. and his position on abortion. Do you have anything mature to say about that?
Since you don't seem to be able to understand the simple point I was making let me spell it out for you. In civilized societies people are told what to do all the time. Laws are agreed upon and passed and people are obliged to live by them. Like it or not.
I won't reply to your Saudia Arabia comment, it's beneath contempt.
I see what you mean. I don't know that he was really off the mark though. I just think he never saw how low our culture could fall. But you're right...tolerance is the virtue of the man who lacks the courage to fight evil.
The Bill of Rights are not about morality. They are about Freedom.
You may really believe that the majority feels as you do but the United States is a Republic and if the people of the United States wanted abortion to be illegal they would vote such that only pro- life candidates would win. Pelosi would not be speaker. Clinton would have never been elected. The Bush Gore contest would have not been close. The Democrat party would disappear. And the Supreme Court would be filled with nine pro-life Justices.
The election results speak the truth of how people really feel. At least the majority.
I do NOT feel that the majority of Americans necessarily feel as I do. I do believe that most FReepers are Constitutional conservatives (not radical libertarians) who believe life begins at conception and see this an an issue of fundamental human rights, with the right to life trumping every other value.
Anyway, by your logic we should all give up and close down FR because the sheeple have spoken and the Demonrats are the majority party. Let's just let the abortion lobby, the public employee unions, the cultural Marxists, and the MSM tell us all what to think.
Whatever I could to talk her out of it, or force her out of it, including threatening to throw her out of the house if she decided to murder her child.
"Supporting" a child's decision to abort her child is like "supporting" a child's decision to commit murder. In fact, that's exactly what it is. Indifference to evil is evil.
By tolerating murder.
I'll leave you to explain that.
What's your point?
You think that is what you believe, but it's not.
If the Constitution is about Freedom being a Constitutional conservative means you believe in the principle of individual freedom. Even the freedom to abortion, as much as you despise the practice.
Many confuse being moral and religious Conservatives with being Constitutional conservatives. It's not the same.
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.