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."
Yes, according to me, and to reality. An honest person would refer to "a right to choose an abortion" or "a right to terminate a pregnancy." The only reason for omitting the main idea in question -- abortion -- is to cloud the issue.
Do you believe in a woman's right to choose to slit toddler's throats? And if not, haven't you learned that people don't like to be told what they can and can not do?
Great to see you on the board. And laying out the truth.
This forum exists for people to ask questions and make comments, please do not tell me what it exists for.
There's no arguement, I'm just asking a question which, it appears, you cannot answer.
Well, that sounds reasonable enough. I agree with you.
A woman's "right" to choose WHAT, exactly? And where did she get that "right?"
Does a woman have the "right" to kill her unwanted, newborn infant? Then why would she have the "right" to kill that same infant seconds before while at least part of the infant's body had not left the birth canal? Where do you draw the line at that point? 5 minutes before birth is too late to kill the child? 5 days before birth? 5 weeks before birth? 5 months? At what point is the child not a human life?
In fact, it is indisputable scientific fact that the unborn child is a live human being meeting all the scientific qualifications for such. What rights does that human being possess? What rights does the father of that human being possess along with the mother?
Let's rewrite your post and put it in a different context to see if you still agree with what you said. This time we'll insert slavery where you refer to abortion. Slavery is directly comparable to abortion because it relegated a subset of live human beings to a status where they were not afforded basic human rights - and it was done legally, protected by state and federal law, and even upheld by the Supreme Court.
Nonsense. The right to own slaves is supported by a substantial majority of voters because it is right and it is fair and even though it is sad.Is that a defensible position? Should the states have been able to continue legalized slavery? Would you have supported a plantation owner's "right" to own and use slaves?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 slaveowners right to own and use his slaves?
When history is written about the abortion era, those who supported the continuance of abortion will be receive the same derision (or worse) that we now assign to those who owned slaves or who supported slavery.
People do NOT have the "right" to do anything they choose, and no society which has ever existed on earth has thought they did. You extremist, ideological libertarians don't care about history, or human nature, or reality. You are locked into a fantasy worldview derived from Heinlein, or Ayn Rand, or your own daydreams. Great statesmen for centuries have debated and worked at rationalizing freedom and order. That's what adults do. They don't prattle slogans. They came up with our Constitution, which severely limited the Federal government, but left the State & local governments almost untouched.
This is a serious forum for conservatives, not a place for adolescent fantasies about unlimited freedom by people whose whole worldview is summed up by childish slogans to the effect that "nobody has the right to tell me what I can do."
The Harris Poll. April 4-10, 2006. N=1,016 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?"
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
49 47 4
Sorry, that has changed. Only the most callous of Liberal socialist still believe this. You know, we are in the age of birth control. There is no lonner the necessity of ANY woman getting an unwanted pregnancy, accept in rare cases.
People SHOULD be using birth control responsibly, instead of killing the unborn. Abortion is no longer necessary because of birth control, which has made extremely rapid strides. There is even a day after pill.
For these reasons abortion should be illegal. WOmen and men have a choice, to use birth control or not.
And then came the 14th Amendment: Incorporation
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Ok, I give up: how does the language that you quoted "incorporate" the bill of rights against the states?
God gives us the right to life.
So how can the same God give us the right to murder innocent children?
Well, I'm saying it.
Are you saying that a populace that condones the murder of 1+ million defenseless children annually respects life?
This shows a differnt story www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=8087 : it's meaning less to argue about polls since (we both) should know that by the wording of the question/sample you can pretty much make a a poll support anything you want (The MSM has done if for years).
I have heard/seeen statistics that are very much against your assertion (and evidenced by 1 poll) that the majority of Americans support abortion in the 1st trimester.
Anway I am sorry, I did asume you knew what I meant by the abreviation, I appologize.
As for innocent victims of war, obviously it is right to avoid that as much as possible. Equally obvious, it is not always possible. You have to see the bigger picture in that case. It is always evil, however, to target civilians as the terrorists do.
This is monstrous.
Rudy's not fit for the office of dog-catcher.
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.