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."

[madprof98]

There are a lot of things that you don't understand, not least of which is what I'm preaching here.

You're a liar, but even worse, you are a snot-nosed liar. You are the one who raised the issue of throwing the pregnant daughter out of the house in order to bait Aquinasfan, so you could then act all pious and righteous if he so much as nodded in the direction of your suggestion. Frankly, I think you are not a Giuliani supporter but a professional agitator for the Democrat party who signed onto this website to make trouble, and I sincerely hope your remaining time here will be very, very limited.

[LtdGovt]

I refuse to look at pictures of amputation, too. I don't like to see blood, quite frankly, though I won't hate you for not having the same taste that I do.

[LtdGovt]

I am, hence the name.

No offense, but I don't think that the real Aquinas would support throwing minor children out of the house, in this day and age.

[George W. Bush]

However, why lose your cool and get all bent out of shape with me over exactly when Reagan became a pro-lifer. BFD!

Dude, you are the one making a big deal out it. I still have tremendous respect for Reagan as the father of the pro-life movement but I don't have to pretend that signing an abortion bill was the act of a pro-lifer.

I like leaders more when they see the errors of their ways and try to fix them. Reagan did that and left us a legacy. Reagan was not to blame for Roe but the CA bill he signed was a brick in its (fatally flawed) foundation.

Reagan took his original decision very personally. I'm not backing down. Lou Cannon and others knew Reagan. They have no reason to lie about what he might have said to them in private.

Others? What others? And Cannon has a reason to lie: book sales. Being a biographer is a profession at which a man expects to make a living.

That 1975 radio broadcast was a key point too. Again. Why would Reagan lie about his abortion opinion in 1967-1968?

But Reagan never said that. He never fixed a date to when he became unconditionally pro-life. Only Cannon did. The 1975 speech only indicated that he had had a change of heart about it sometime between 1968 and 1975. Those are the simple facts in evidence.

It would have been easier for you to just say, 'it was no big deal, we can agree to disagree'. 1968, 1970, 1973... whatever. Not you though.

Strangely, you didn't notice you could have also said 'no bid deal'. But you didn't. Well, except that 'BFD!' in your current post, to state it charitably.

One of the reasons I am pursuing this is because I do want to know the truth and what facts we can muster. I've seen a tremendous number of posts comparing Reagan to Giuliani and trying to give The Rudy a pass based on flawed info about Reagan's record. I think it's utterly false. If we're to prevent Giuliani from seizing the Reagan mantle, we need to know our facts and what we can prove. The same may apply to arguments over McStain or Romney when the campaigns heat up. We should be prepared to compare and contrast the records of these candidates for the nominee of the party of Reagan. How better to do it than by comparing directly to Reagan himself? And we both know that Giuliani misses the mark by a mile.

[harrowup]

You are obviously denser than a stump if you neither know what flip means nor when someone has no interest in your constant flaming.

[George W. Bush]

When do you celebrate your birthday?

This is so boneheadedly ignorant even a Giuliani supporter should blush to ask it.

It is a birthday, not a conception day. It commemorates the birth, particularly when we cannot precisely determine the date of conception even in the modern era. But from ancient times, we've always been able to mark the date of birth.

I begin to think that FR has been overrun by soccer moms.

[LtdGovt]

You're a liar, but even worse, you are a snot-nosed liar. You are the one who raised the issue of throwing the pregnant daughter out of the house in order to bait Aquinasfan, so you could then act all pious and righteous if he so much as nodded in the direction of your suggestion.

Cut the ranting, will you? Your misrepresentation of what happened is quite striking, even as you call me a liar. The following is my recollection: Since our friend Aquinasfan called it 'monstrous' for Giuliani to support and accept his daughter's decision, I queried to find out what he would propose, and I listed a few things that he might do. He replied by telling that he would threaten to throw his daughter out of the house. And I find that monstrous, and I said so.

Frankly, I think you are not a Giuliani supporter but a professional agitator for the Democrat party who signed onto this website to make trouble, and I sincerely hope your remaining time here will be very, very limited.

What you 'think' is irrelevant, since your alleged thoughts have been wrong before, by calling me a liar, by claiming demonization. I suggest that you work on your delusions, you might be able to remedy them - if you're lucky.

[harrowup]

The crux of the issue is whether women have the right to terminate a child's life inside them.

No, it is not. It is whether a woman has a right to choose whether she wishes to carry a fetus to term.

Conservatives DO support a woman's right to choose...whether to cause a child to be conceived...

Wrong on several counts. While some conservatives choose to judge a woman's sexuality and morals and others don't want to pay for another's mistakes the bottom line is that it is no one's business but the woman carrying the fetus.

[harrowup]

This is so boneheadedly ignorant even a Giuliani supporter should blush to ask it.

Ah, it is so tiresome dealing with self-appointed guardians, self-righteous, morally indignant heros of the republic, free or not.

Look up flip and then remember that while quotes are your friends, context is your lover.

If you can handle that rather risque image.

No, FR hasn't been overrun with soccer moms in my observation. Rather, the morally superior judgemental types have resurfaced with something they can preach about along with the evils of homosexuality.

Now, there's an interesting question. Which is more damnable, two gay queens raising a child abandoned at birth or two dykes bringing a fetus to term? Ah, the joy of precious life v. sin. And, I am no Giuliani supporter so don't take it out on them.

[Aquinasfan]

No offense, but I don't think that the real Aquinas would support throwing minor children out of the house, in this day and age.

He wasn't a coward, as far as I know.

[Aquinasfan]

it is no one's business but the woman carrying the fetus.

Then murder is a private matter between the murderer and the murderee. No one else's.

So let's decriminalize murder. After all, you have a right to choose.

[harrowup]

Cite the most recent case of a woman charged for same.

The last 'abortion' related murder I recall was one of you buddies killing a doctor Upstate. Then before that there was that Rudolf nut you championed who blew up a few clinics. Don't remember if he killed anyone or not.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Dude, you are the one making a big deal out it. Strangely, you didn't notice you could have also said 'no bid deal'. But you didn't.

At least we agree this is not a BIG deal. And thanks for not using the "Reagan was pro-choice" slogan again. Coming back and getting in your face, however, I think is warranted. Instead of continuing down this foolish path, you should have just moved along. You do an injustice to the Reagan legacy. Attacking me as a spinner of fairy tales; with integrity equal to a Clinonista; and even a dumb analogy to Hitler, was uncalled for.

>>>>Others? What others? And Cannon has a reason to lie: book sales. Being a biographer is a profession at which a man expects to make a living.

Over the years I've read similar comments by Reaganites Ed Meese, Lyn Nofziger and William Clark making the same case I have, about Reagan having serious regrets signing that 1967 California abortion rights bill into law. Lou Cannon wrote several books on Reagan over the years. He has told the good, the bad and the ugly parts of the Reagan storyline. You're not willing to accept his remarks at face value. I do. I see a logical conclusion when viewing the historic facts, however minimal they maybe.

Besides, everyone knows how Nancy R. protects the Reagan legacy. If she thought Cannon was creating falsehoods, she'd have been all over him. Same goes for Michael Reagan, and even the two liberal Reagan children, Patty and Ron jr. ALL the Reagan's are good at setting the record straight. From what I've read, Lou Cannon had open access to Reagan, especially when he was Governor of California. You're ignoring the factual truth. Why? I don't know.

>>>>But Reagan never said that. He never fixed a date to when he became unconditionally pro-life. Only Cannon did. The 1975 speech only indicated that he had had a change of heart about it sometime between 1968 and 1975. Those are the simple facts in evidence.

You keep implying things to me that I never said. The question wasn't Reagan being an unconditional pro-lifer early on. It was when Reagan actually began to accept the pro-life position. Again, the three exceptions rule covers 5% of ALL abortions. Reagan opposed 95% of abortions. That was his public position in 1967. It remained that way until Pres Reagan proposed a right to life amendment to the US Constitution. At that time, the only exception Reagan thought belonged in such an amendment, was the one exception to save the life of the mother.

I took the time to transcribe the relevant portion of Reagan's 1975 radio address from the book "Reagan In His Own Hand". Even gave you the page numbers, 380-385, if you wanted to look them up. Even though Reagan didn't employ actual dates, the overall thrust of his remarks can't be denied. IMO, Reagan was crystal clear. Just for the record:

"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."

The title of that radio address of April 1975 was, Abortion Laws. What else could Reagan POSSIBLY be talking about? "Eight years ago when I became Gov....", means 1967! Reagan was setting the record straight. PERIOD!!!

[Aquinasfan]

Cite the most recent case of a woman charged for same.

Clever.

Are you telling me that the baby isn't a human being?

Then why are you so anxious to kill it?

[linda_22003]

It's an interesting question to consider. No proposed law which recommends punishment for abortion recommends punishment for the woman - just a fine or a possible short jail term for the doctor. I've never heard of such a light punishment for murder.

When I've seen threads on abortion here on FR, people generally say the doctor should receive some punishment but not the woman. Do most cases of a "hit" punish the "hitman" but not the person who contracted the hit in the first place?

Does that sound like anyone considers it legally on a par with murder, including those who drafted the partial birth abortion bill?

[stuartcr]

I believe that since different people have different morals, then yes, to some these acts are probably morally equivalent. That is the main gist behind what I mean by things being relative. I do not believe in moral absolutes. I believe in man's striving for and desiring moral absolutes, but I do not believe they exist.

About the stealing, as you said, the act derives its species from the object of the act, the intention of the actor, and the circumstances surrounding the act.

You are correct in that there is no escape from the notions of good and evil, but I believe they are different for different people. I believe that the concepts of good and evil are strictly a human trait, as I do not believe that God looks at things the same way we do. After all, He created us knowing what we will do with our lives.

The peacemakers I refer to are what is mentioned in your Just War Doctrine.

Reality and natural reason tells me that the end result of either abortion, murder, self-defense, etc, is the ending of a human life. The only difference is why.

I have no arguement, I just have the beliefs that God created in me.

I do not believe that these discussions can be addressed in the logical manner you desire, because that would require a similarity in our faiths, which does not exist.

[NittanyLion]

You are obviously denser than a stump if you neither know what flip means nor when someone has no interest in your constant flaming.

First of all, I notice that my post didn't make it into the "dead letter box" as you stated earlier.

Constant flaming? You bring a famous quote to mind, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." I'm not flaming you, but if the truth sounds like flaming that might give you pause to reconsider your beliefs.

Now, on to the business at hand. If your previous answer wasn't meant to be taken literally, then we'll try this yet again. When do you believe life begins?

[NittanyLion]

Clever. Are you telling me that the baby isn't a human being? Then why are you so anxious to kill it?

I'd say it's a pretty good indication that you've carried the day when your opponent resorts to insults and carefully parsed statements...

[MHGinTN]

You opined, " The right to choose is supported by a substantial majority of voters because it is right and it is fair ..." Supported by? ... as in the right to buy and sell and work to death 'organisms' called negroes. A majority in this nation agreed with that one, remember?

BTW, if life doesn't begin at conception, what is it that begins at conception? [HINT: look closely at the term 'organism' regarding what begins at conception.]

[Aquinasfan]

I believe that since different people have different morals, then yes, to some these acts are probably morally equivalent. That is the main gist behind what I mean by things being relative. I do not believe in moral absolutes. I believe in man's striving for and desiring moral absolutes, but I do not believe they exist.

Do you mean to say that no human action carries any moral weight; that all human acts are simply mechanical?

You are correct in that there is no escape from the notions of good and evil, but I believe they are different for different people.

That's true, but it doesn't follow that objective moral truths do not exist.

I believe that the concepts of good and evil are strictly a human trait, as I do not believe that God looks at things the same way we do.

What do you base this belief on?

Reality and natural reason tells me that the end result of either abortion, murder, self-defense, etc, is the ending of a human life. The only difference is why.

You admit that it's a real difference, with real existence. So why do you ignore it?

I have no arguement, I just have the beliefs that God created in me.

How do you know that? Is it possible that you arrived at your beliefs through rationalization?

I do not believe that these discussions can be addressed in the logical manner you desire, because that would require a similarity in our faiths.

Do you base your beliefs on anything external to yourself? Your beliefs seem solipsistic to me, or worse, you have made yourself God, deciding for yourself what constitutes good and evil.