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

NewsMax ^ | Feb 22, 2007 | NewsMax.com Staff

[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."

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Would you agree then, that the ending of a life is actually relative to the situation?

Not really. The lines are clear. I would not be comfortable saying it is relative to the situation because that implies too much. It opens the door to more justification of death than I would ever feel comfortable with. Murder or the threat of murder/death is the only valid reason for ending life. God gives life and numbers our days. Man should only take life that is either a threat to human life or has human blood on its hands. Destroying innocent life just for convenience is despicable.

[LtdGovt]

Try reading the Federalist Papers, or numerous documents the Founders wrote during the debates about the Constitution.

I have all those in a few nifty books. Please cite the appropriate texts.

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.

That's very close to a Lincoln quote, who of course wasn't a founding father. But it's irrelevant. The Founders had a state that was half slave and half free. And it was 1787. You can't compare that with 2007. This is not the Dar al Islam, where 220 years go by without progress.

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.

How nice. Quite telling that your self-image is so lacking, that you would seek to demean other people, in order to make you feel better about yourself. That's okay. You can have your moment. I'll refrain from firing back (which you would richly deserve BTW).

Of course government should be limited. It IS limited.

Yet you propose a government in which state and local government have the right to control every aspect of our lives, to combat supposed 'immoralities' like drinking or gambling. That sounds... totalitarian, not at all like Reagan. Government is only limited when there are no arbitrary laws against 'immorality'.

Anyway, this thread was supposed to be about Rudy G. and his position on abortion. Do you have anything mature to say about that?

Certainly. Rudy has never waivered from his position. And unlike other candidates, who run from their past, he defends what he did and said in the past.

[LtdGovt]

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 see something is different about your post. This time, you add: "like it or not" to the end. Yet, the last time, you were running a full-fledged defense of government authoritarianism.

I won't reply to your Saudia Arabia comment, it's beneath contempt.

Seriously, what is a person to do, if he is so terribly upset by alcohol and gambling?

[LtdGovt]

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.

You called what Rudy said monstrous, but I will tell you: this is monstrous. I just can't believe that any person, no matter how evil, would do this to his own kin.

Anyway, did you not decide to have a child? Did you not decide to take care of her? Is this not an abdication of responsibility, throwing her out of the house? Who would do that to a poor child?

[hellbender]

The Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution establish certain SPECIFIC rights. They do NOT make sweeping statements like "everyone can do whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone." No adult believes that rights are unlimited. No civilized society anywhere has ever believed that. The Founders were very conscious of the risks of anarchy as well as those of tyranny.

Let's get back to the issue, which is Rudy G. and abortion. Your so fixated on "rights," but do you think people below a certain age have no rights? History shows that societies which allow abortion move on to deprive other classes of humans of the right to life, such as the very old (euthanasia), the mentally deficient, and so on. We're seeing that progression right now in Europe.

I can see a spiritual descendant of Rudy G. saying: "Personally, I'm opposed to killing off Grandpa, but only until he's 90, or only after he's had a stroke. But I believe the children should have the choice of whether he lives. I think it's their right."

[hellbender]

Am I not correct that the great Rudy G. ran the prostitutes out of Times Square? Didn't they have a right to do whatever they want? This is America; we can't impose our prudish morality about "sex professionals" on others, can we? And Rudy put a stop to squeegee men, who were just entrepreneurs plying their trade. Whattaya know. Maybe even Rudy believes in some kind of restraints. Just not when it involves innocent life.

[LtdGovt]

They do NOT make sweeping statements like "everyone can do whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone." No adult believes that rights are unlimited.

Indeed. They are limited by the rights of other people. Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.

History shows that societies which allow abortion move on to deprive other classes of humans of the right to life,

Please do cite the historical precedents. I'm very interested.

I can see a spiritual descendant of Rudy G. saying: "Personally, I'm opposed to killing off Grandpa

The vision might go away if you get some more sleep.

[LtdGovt]

Am I not correct that the great Rudy G. ran the prostitutes out of Times Square? Didn't they have a right to do whatever they want?

Times Square is a public place. You can't do whatever you want in a public place.

And Rudy put a stop to squeegee men, who were just entrepreneurs plying their trade.

What kind of men?

Maybe even Rudy believes in some kind of restraints.

What about you? Are you upset that Prohibition has been repealed?

[hellbender]

I support the Constitution as is is written, according to the intent of the men who drafted it, not as bizarrely and illogically extended by the courts. I have said nothing here remotely referring to religion. I may have opinions on that issue, but they are almost identical to those of the men who founded our Republic.

Most people would consider "the Constitution is about freedom" to be nothing more than a slogan. It's a legal document, not a manifesto.

[George W. Bush]

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.

I'm not trying to tear Reagan down. But I am saying that a pro-life politician can't be counted as pro-life until they actually speak or write publicly against abortion and in favor of life.

If you can't find anything Reagan wrote or said against abortion prior to 1975, then you should concede that he was not pro-life until 1975. To do anything else is to say that he was a secret pro-lifer or had some ulterior motives.

People can and do change. And wisdom may set in as we grow older and think about our past choices. I think that is what happened with Reagan.

[stuartcr]

You had asked...'how can the same God give us the right to murder innocent children'.

[stuartcr]

The lines are clear that ending a human life depends on the situation, doesn't it? As you say...threat = ok, abortion = not ok...isn't that depending on the situation? Either way, a human life has been ended.

[Aquinasfan]

You called what Rudy said monstrous, but I will tell you: this is monstrous. I just can't believe that any person, no matter how evil, would do this to his own kin.

Anyway, did you not decide to have a child? Did you not decide to take care of her? Is this not an abdication of responsibility, throwing her out of the house? Who would do that to a poor child?

You don't seem to understand that the child is choosing to put her child through a meat-grinder.

Are you going to stand by and say, "whatever"?

Look at these photos and tell me that you would stand by and let your daughter slaughter her own child.

1st trimester abortions.

2nd and 3rs trimester abortions

Revelation 3:15-16

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of my mouth.

Proverbs 24:11

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

[hellbender]

I challenged you to provide any founding document of the U.S. which says that "they have a right to do everything they want, as long as it doesn't harm others."

You then proceed to dodge, evade, and not respond. Come on, open those "nifty books" and find an answer to my question.

"The Founders had a state that was half slave and half free. And it was 1787. You can't compare that with 2007."

Oh. I guess you're one of those who think the Constitution is a "living, breathing document?" Or maybe that we should ignore it entirely, because it was written by a bunch of bigoted dead white men?

I notice you don't deny being under 20...hehe. My self-image is just fine, by the way.

"Yet you propose a government in which state and local government have the right to control every aspect of our lives, to combat supposed 'immoralities' like drinking or gambling."

Nowhere did I "propose" any such government. I simply said that local governments had the authority under the Constitution to do things like that. Always have and probably always will. There has never been a society anywhere on earth which lived according to your fantasies.

You were the one who said there was an absolute right to gamble or get drunk. When I referred to doing drugs..well, I regard alcohol as just another drug. Civilized society condones its use but regulates it. And no, I never did drugs. If you didn't either, congratulations on having good sense about something.

[Aquinasfan]

You had asked...'how can the same God give us the right to murder innocent children'.

No wonder why I couldn't figure out what you were getting at. God can give us the right to life and the right to murder?

God is the God of reason, not contradiction. God cannot do the contradictory or nonsensical. This is not a limitation of God, but a sign of His infinite perfection.

[stuartcr]

God gives us the right to make war doesn't He? Have all wars been right? Where is the sense in plagues, or starvation, or natuaral disasters? How do you know what God can or cannot do?

[Diamond]

"I'd give my daughter the money for it."

Wow. How generous of him to pay the hit man.

Cordially,

[Sabramerican]

not as.......extended by the courts.

Then you don't believe in the American form of government.

[Aquinasfan]

Indeed. They are limited by the rights of other people. Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.

Where do unalienable rights come from? Society? If so, rights can be rescinded by society. Ourselves? Same problem. The State? The State can vote to rescind rights.

Eternal rights can only come from an eternal lawgiver, God. And God cannot give us the right to do evil. So no one enjoys an unalienable right to do evil, even if these evils don't immediately affect others.

The State my permit evils for prudential reasons, but not because people enjoy a God-given right to do evil. This is where libertarian thought is so fundamentally confused.

[hellbender]

We allow all kinds of activities to go on in "public places." People get up and make speeches, pass out leaflets, hold art exhibits, play musical instruments, etc. Why not allow those nice "sex workers" to ply their trade, hmm? They're not "harming anybody, and "everyone can do whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone." Everyone knows prostitution is a victimless crime, just like gambling or getting drunk, right?

Oh, now you admit that rights are limited by the rights of other people?

Then the right of a woman to "choose" abortion is null because she is depriving another human being of the paramount right, the right to life.

Game, set, match. Thanks for showing how flawed the "pro-choice" position is.

As for historic precedents, try the Soviet Union. Abortion was a "right," and officially encouraged. That's about the only right anyone had over there.

Then there's modern Europe, which is following the logical progression from abortion/infanticide, to euthanasia of the old, to assisted suicide for the mentally ill, etc.