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."
Self-defense is killing, abortion is murder. They both have the same result...the end of a human life at the hand of a fellow man. How does one determine the justness of a war?
Did God know beforehand of the fall? How is it, that if God is the creator of all, He is not the creator of evil also? Is it possible that evil was here before God? Otherwise He must have created it. Can evil be the opposite of God? If so, then wouldn't that make evil equal to God, how is that possible? There are quite a number of ifs in the article on evil. The article is good and wordy, but it is in no way a defining piece of work, as it requires the same beliefs as the author. I'm sure the author believes it to be true, but as he said, there is no way to know for sure.
How do you know what a perfect being can or cannot do? Are you using a human definition? Is that which is nonsensical, irrational or impossible to us, an imperfection to God? Or just a trait or ability that God has and we don't?
Anyway, it's time to go, and as usual we go in circles with these discussions as each tries to twist the sentences around to our liking or belief. If any of this could be proven, then by now I bet a lot more people would believe the same way. Until then, we will all be satisied with what we each believe, or don't believe. As usual, Thanks.
No it is not "depending on the situation." To me that means more than just the difference between ending a threat and murdering an innocent. The entire reason it is okay when someone is a threat is based on the premise that murder is always wrong. So that isn't really a case of depending on the situation. That's a case of being forced to defend the innocent against the guilty. You don't kill because of the situation. You defend yourself or someone else. That's a big difference.
So it is ok to kill, when one is forced to end a threat. How is that not dependent upon a situation, a threatening situation? I realise the difference, but the right or wrong of it really is dependent upon something. Anyway, I'm leaving, thanks.
Even Reagan's own words on abortion as clearly spoken in that 1975 radio address, mean nothing to you. The fact Reagan was telling a storyline that occurred in 1968 doesn't sway your opinion. You're not willing to trust Reagan at face value on this issue. His words are meaningless to you. Okay.
"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.
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."
~~~~ From the book: Reagan In His Own Hand
Everyone who follows history knows, first came several state supreme court decisions that were handed down just prior to Roe v Wade that expanded abortion rights. The SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade came down in 1973. Until that time abortion on demand wasn't legal throughout America. Most politicos didn't run around the country speaking out against abortion. Reagan as California Governor didn't run around the country speaking out against abortion either. He signed a bill into law that allowed for the 5% exception rule of rape, incest and to save the health/life of the mother.
What you're saying doesn't add up. Sorry. Reagan was never pro-choice. He may not have been as strong a pro-lifer in 1968, as he was to become over the next few years, but to say Reagan was pro-choice is to distort the historic facts.
Nice Reagan article but still no public position against abortion prior to 1975.
The truth of the matter is that I do respect him for sticking to his beliefs instead of shamelessly pandering. That said, I can't vote for someone who is pro-abortion and anti-gun.
I'm surprised you're unable to recognize that protection of individual rights is a legitimate role of government.
I think you just answered your own question.
Just as it existed everywhere before. Right or wrong the American people want legal abortion.
That's the reality and it's not going away.
I am more surprised you don't understand that fact is central to my argument, the woman's right to choose whether to carry a fetus to term is about as individual a right as there is...and she doesn't need the second amendment to assure her that right. She has the SCOTUS.
If you don't like the SCOTUS ruling then elect the boys to Congress to change that fact.
You like the rule of law? Obey it.
And with a good number of republicans and others that would not vote for all three of them.. elected with a mandate.. Not to speak of the House and Senate seats that would fall for the same reason..
Interesting times await.. (Jaws theme)..
Excepting, of course, the individual that happens to be in her uterus. People who argue from your position tend to forget that.
If you don't like the SCOTUS ruling then elect the boys to Congress to change that fact.
I make every attempt to do just that. I also attempt to elect Presidents who will change that fact. Which brings us to this thread, doesn't it?
You like the rule of law? Obey it.
What does that have to do with anything? Am I somehow not obeying the law by voting for pro-life candidates?
People who argue from your position tend to forget that...life does not begin at conception. and that the SCOTUS has ruled constitutionally on the issue of choice ad nauseum and yet your position is that it is unconstitutional.
That is barking at midnight.
Now, I am done with all of you who think God belongs in the classroom, abortionists should be jailed or shot with your weapon of choice...get the point?
When does life begin?
Now, I am done with all of you who think God belongs in the classroom, abortionists should be jailed or shot with your weapon of choice...get the point?
Can you point me to the post where I stated abortionists should be jailed or shot? I expected you can do better than logical fallacies. Obviously I overestimated you.
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.