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."
Sorry but for some reason I don't think it is un-American to oppose the murder of small children. And that is EXACTLY what abortion is.
This really speaks volumes about your inability to reason through the situation. I find it incredible that anyone could believe that a child born at 12:00PM on a given day is merely an inanimate object at 11:59AM on that same day, and I'm joined in that view by anyone with an ounce of logic.
I'm sorry you're unable to summon the necessary ounce; perhaps one day you'll grow to understand the blindingly obvious correctness of my statements.
Now, I'm really done with you. I am exhausted having to deal with hardheads who wake up cranky.
I'm not surprised. The level of mental contortions required in order to justify your views would tire anyone out.
when people give that reasoning i always ask them:
"why are you personally oposed?"
"why would you talk people out of it?"
"why would you never have one?"
There's only one answer... BECAUSE IT'S WRONG!!
I agree that the intention and circumstances surrounding these acts are different. Since they have the same results, to me that makes it relative. Sometimes it's ok to take a life or steal, sometimes it's not. Depends on the situation...and many people see situations differently.
Who were the peacemakers during the reformation or during our civil war?
Because Aquinas wrote something, doesn't make it so. You look at things in the light of Catholic doctrine, I do not. That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong...it just means we are different.
Perhaps my initial statement was extreme. I would rephrase: I have no respect for the opinion that abortion is okay in any trimester. Anyone who holds that opinion should die.
Just kidding. Anyone who holds that opinion has a smaller chance of earning my respect (whatever that is worth) based on their analytical capacities. So I admit that it would be possible for me to still respect someone as a person who is so horribly misguided that they consider abortion okay.
Maybe you should reconsider your position on who should or should not be labeled anti-American
I'm only catching the end of this thread, but I assume you raised the recent case of the child born at 22 weeks, now healthy and going home? (Of course that really isn't a child, it's just a sticky clump of cells...)
"Absolutely not."
Here's why you should. The vast majority of those 66% likely have little or no knowledge- first-hand, medical or otherwise- of the actual procedure and its effects. My faith in human ability leads me to believe that with the proper education that number would fall WELL below 50%. Meaning it would most certainly not be "anti-American" in your strict definition, to disrespect those people who still support first trimester abortion.
I can't tell you how much I respect you for saying that.
*************
Exactly right.
Rudy Giuliani
*************
It does sound very much like something Hillary might say, or rather, has said.
What does that mean? The acts are morally equivalent? Or that we can't know that these acts are good or evil? In either case, what are you basing your argument on, besides your own authority?
Sometimes it's ok to take a life or steal, sometimes it's not. Depends on the situation...
Truly, or as a matter of opinion?
...and many people see situations differently.
Like Hitler and Mother Theresa. But that doesn't mean that their views are morally equivalent. In fact, it doesn't mean anything at all.
Who were the peacemakers during the reformation or during our civil war?
I give up. Who? What's a "peacemaker"? What is "peace"?
Because Aquinas wrote something, doesn't make it so.
Of course. I'm not basing my beliefs on his authority. His arguments conform with reality. They are true, which is why I believe them. But, along with Aristotle, he is one of the greatest philosophers in history. So his authority means something as well.
You look at things in the light of Catholic doctrine, I do not.
In light of natural truths and dogma. The arguments from Aquinas that I've presented to you are based on natural reason, not dogma, since you don't believe in the teaching authority of Christ's Church.
That doesn't mean either of us is right or wrong...it just means we are different.
Is it right or wrong to believe "either of us is right or wrong...it just means we are different"?
There's no escape from notions of good and evil, as long as you are going to assert anything.
You rarely address any of the arguments that I present to you on a logical basis. Instead, you retreat to absolute skepticism, which is self-contradictory.
The only overarching principle that I can discern regarding your thought is a general antipathy toward truth.
Try this analogy. I support the medical practice of amputation, when necessary. I tend to avoid still images of the practice, however.
Nevertheless, if you were going to argue against the procedure, saying, "look at images of amputation! How can you support this!," I would look at the images. It wouldn't trouble my conscience in the least, because I understand the necessity of the procedure.
So why won't you look at the consequences of your beliefs? Why won't you look at images of the babies that die because of your indifference to their plight? You won't because you can't defend your position, and your conscience troubles you.
Why the double speak? Just call abortion what it is.
Says the person who would sit by and do nothing while his daughter slaughtered his grandaughter.
I wouldn't sit by and do nothing. I would do anything within my power to stop her from murdering her daughter.
You're also making a false assumption in your pathetic argument in support of murder, which is that a woman would be harmed more by being threatened with being thrown out of the house, than being tormented for the rest of her life by her decision to murder her child.
I am, hence the name.
You said: Nonsense. The right to choose is supported by a substantial majority of voters because it is right and it is fair and even though it is sad.
When are you guys ever going to learn that people don't like to be told what they can and can not do?
Whatever happened to the conservative mantra that government should stay out of your affairs...and now you want the government to outlaw a woman's right to choose?
***
I am sure otherwise will respond in a more articulate (and clean!) manner than I, but let me respond as best I can.
First, I agree that no one likes to be told what he or she can and cannot do. That said, there are countless examples of this, and we call them laws. Good laws are made for the public and individual safety and welfare. I assume you do support laws that tell people what not to do with or to YOUR body, right? The crux of the issue is whether women have the right to terminate a child's life inside them.
You are also correct that conservatives generally believe in as little government interference in our lives as possible. But conservatives are also strong on law and order, and the taking of innocent human life by another should be prohibited by government.
Conservatives DO support a woman's right to choose...whether to cause a child to be conceived. Once there is a child inside the mother (and here there can be differences of opinion as to just when that occurs, at conception or at some later point) no law should permit the termination of that child's life, with rare exceptions that almost certainly account for less than 1% of the abortions performed in this country.
The "right" of one person to unilaterally decide whether another lives or dies is, or ought to be, universally rejected by all thinking people.
I would not care to be part of a "lodge" that opposes the right of innocent human beings to live.
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.