I Have Seen the Future: It Is Giuliani (Red State.com)

Red State.com ^ | 3/5/07 | Eric Erkickson

[meg88]

Today I have seen the future and that future is President Rudy.

It's not that I'm voting for Rudy, but the vacuum to be filled has been filled.

Consider this:

Rudy Giuliani and Tony Snow are the only guys who have had to have fire marshals bar people from entering due to overcapacity in a very big room.

In the green room, Giuliani's speech was the only one to cause everyone to sit down, shut up and watch.

More and more, the conservatives at CPAC are realigning. You have the Brownback folks, the Mitt folks, and the people who are headed quickly to Rudy. And you know what? They are more or less cheerful in doing it.

They've found the guy who knows he needs them to get in the door. They know the calculus Rudy has made -- the conservatives aren't selling out their principles; Rudy is telling them he won't impose his social view on them, but he'll keep them safe.

After all, abortion is not an issue when a terrorist has killed you.

Look for all guns to turn on Rudy now. He's been the frontrunner all along and now the rest of the pack realizes it.

The reception he got at CPAC should worry them.

[highlander_UW]

It's not that I'm voting for Rudy, but the vacuum to be filled has been filled.

Well, the author's not voting for Rudy...and I'm not voting for Rudy...and there seems to be quite a few who aren't going to vote for Rudy. He's going to have to pull quite a few democrat voters to make up for the conservatives he's not going to have voting for him.

[MHGinTN]

The following shows me you have no desire to carry on a reasonable discussion; I will answer your other question following: If Ronald Reagan didn't have the 'evidence' that we have, then surely, Bush has a twisted mind because he favors an exception in cases of rape, incest and for the life of the mother? The childish 'surely Bush has a twisted mind' comment is quite telling of your mindset.

You asked, as if placing an insurmountable obstacle, Why did he continue to favor exceptions for the life of the mother, and for cases of rape and incest? Perhaps for the same reason that I do also, the issue of self defense. But you apparently don't actually wish to clarify anything and have a reasonable adult discussion of the issues, so thank you for the exchanges, I have better things to do now.

[LtdGovt]

To distill this down to its basic components: A) I don't know where to pin the beginning of life; B) Therefore, for pragmatic purposes we'll assume it begins at birth and allow abortion up to that point.

Allowing abortion until birth? Certainly not. In fact, I identified that position as an extreme pro-choice posititon that I'm certainly not willing to endorse.

The reason life begins at conception is because it is the kickoff point at which the human organism begins developing. It is the only logical rubicon beyond which the cells contain within themselves all of the attributes necessary for human development, and before which they retain the DNA attributes marking them as members of the parent. There is no other point in the gestional process about which this could be said, hence your difficulty pinpointing one.

Your argument sounds like a rationalization of something you already believe. That's why I don't think that we're going to agree, ever. Also, it's not persuasive and it leads to results that I'm unwilling to accept. I'm sure like-minded people will be impressed, but you'll not convince anyone beyond that select group (select indeed because polls show that no more than 20% of people favor your position).

Trying to bring the CREVO argument to the table is specious because by design the arguments I've used could be employed by a pro-life atheist.

Correct. However, I was using evolution as a metaphor to describe the development of a fetus. Whether or not you accept evolution is irrelevant, you know how it works and can apply it to the fetus.

I'm out of here. I'm 99.99% certain that this debate will not lead to something productive. Oh and by the way, you asked what my position was, I believe that first-trimester abortions should be allowed.

[Lexinom]

BTW, to toss a carrot your way, from a pragmatic standpoint I would be very happy with a ban on abortion that included rape/incest exceptions. This would remove legal sanction from the overwhelming majority of abortions. I am afraid, though, in light of the Blackmun quote with which we kicked off this exchange, that abortion law is an all-or-none proposition, for reasons already explained in that post.

[LtdGovt]

My apologies, I thought you were saying that people who do believe that exceptions should be made for those cases (for any reason, self-defense, whatever) have a 'twisted mind'. That's why I thought that you were yet another fire-eater on this issue.

[LtdGovt]

I'll be happy to discuss abortion law with you, if that's what you want. At least then we will be able to end with something productive.

I don't believe that abortion law is an all-or-none proposition, regardless of the Blackmun quote. That assumes that the courts are bound to have a position on abortion. However, this is not true. Many justices on today's court believe that the Constitution prohibits neither abortion nor limitations on it. Thus, if Roe is ever overturned, the issue will be returned to the states.

[Crusher138]

With the country in the state that it is (1/3 conservative, 1/3 liberal, 1/3 confused) any candidate will have to appeal to the 1/3 confused to win.

If ANY candidate is portrayed as too left or too right in the general election, they will loose, unless the opponent is sooo incompetent and disliked that even their side doesn't turn out to support them (think Carter). Reagan won not only because conservatives loved him, but because even liberals had had enough of Jimmy.

You gain the love of your party in the primaries. If your party isn't fractured, if you win big in the primaries, the base is settled and you go after the middle 1/3. If you win the primaries by default (like when you are President) or if the primaries are contentious, you'd BETTER be "middle-of-the-road" or you stand NO chance of winning.

Since we have no beloved, popular conservative running for President the ONLY choice the Republican party has is to run someone who will get a bunch of Republican votes, a lot of middle voters, and some disenchanted Democrats. Just as disenchanted Republican's would not vote for Hillary, they just wouldn't vote, unhappy Dems would not vote for a Duncan or a Gingrich, but some might vote for a Rudy.

I wish there was a Reagan waiting in the wings, but understand, Reagan wasn't a surprise. He had run 4 years before and almost won the primary. We have no one in that position now. Under normal circumstances it would be the current Vice President, but Cheney isn't running. Neither is Rice, or anyone else associated with the current administration. Rudy is the best known, best respected, Republican (in name only) willing to run. If he is not nominated, it will be difficult for who ever is nominated to win.

Damned if you do...

[highlander_UW]

The leading dems are Hillary and Obama. They are both far left candidates and prone to dishonesty. Even a conservative equally to the right as they are left (and I don't believe there are any) should, according to your 1/3's, obtain roughly equal votes....and if honesty plays in the conservative should win...but as I said, there aren't any republicans that are as extreme right as Hillary and Obama are to the left. It isn't necessary to find a moderate liberal running as a republican to win. Face it, there are quite a few blue dog democrats that will vote for whoever the dems ran regardless of qualifications...trying to compete with a dem for dem votes while discarding the conservative vote is not a winning strategy.

[Crusher138]

Don't get me wrong...I don't like the Rudy option. I am a strong proponent of kill the Rino's in the primaries. I am just not seeing an heir apparent and, if you go back to before GWB, that's what Republicans won with. No one was going to beat Eisenhower. Nixon had been a VP. Reagan had almost won the primary before. GHWB had been a VP. They were all "obvious" and there is no "obvious" Republican candidate. The "obvious" falls on the Dem side with Hillary (an almost VP).

It isn't going to be pretty.

[highlander_UW]

As it stands, I agree with you, it isn't going to be pretty. Although it's still a bit early. Duncan appears to have potential...he's seemed pretty good in what I've seen of him. Newt might run...he's got baggage, but no more than Rudy and at least he's a conservative with lots of ideas. I've seen Thompson's name bandied about...not sure where he stands on issues, but my impression is he's a solid conservative. The field isn't done as it is.

[DungeonMaster]

I'm a bit skeptical about heaven being partly populated by the souls of every human sperm and egg that was united but was miscarried. I've heard that a large percentage of fertilized eggs never make it to the womb and are lost at menstruation.

I just don't find any evidence in the bible that late periods are people. However, I'm disgusted by what labs are doing with cloning and stem cell research on human embryos.

[MHGinTN]

Um, this is gonna be boring to some, but here goes.

I'm a bit skeptical about heaven being partly populated by the souls of every human sperm and egg that was united but was miscarried. I've heard that a large percentage of fertilized eggs never make it to the womb and are lost at menstruation. And skeptical you should be, for sperm and ova are parts of an organism, not organisms themselves; the sperm part of a male organism and the ova parts of a female organism.

There is no reproducible science which shows 'a large percentage' of conceptions are washed from a female's body by menstruation. You've somehow assimilated a lie wrapped in false wording. The false wording is the use of fertilized egg, because as soon as the genes in the sperm (haploid cell, meaning half the normal complement of genes for a human organism) combine with the half complement from the ovum, there is no longer an 'egg' because there is now a unique ORGANISM begun, with the full 46 chromosome complement of a human being; with conception, subunits of two ORGANISMS combine to conceive into existence a new ORGANISM.

This combinatorial process of conception occurs in the female ORGANISM's fallopian tube, normally, and then it takes days for this new ORGANISM to make his or her way to the uterus for implantation, or in rare cases be flushed from the uterus with the menses. The natural processes are that abnormal ORGANISMS -having some defect genetically or chromosomal- do not successfully implant in the normal scheme of the biology and are thus flushed from the body of the larger organism who does the life support function, the mother.

The key to not being deceived wirh the purposeful false wording is to understand the difference between subunit cells and ORGANISM: a sperm or ovum is a subunit of an organism, a newly conceived zygote is a whole new ORGANISM at single cell AGE. The term fertilized egg is designed to deceive by falsely manipulating the language. Those at FR who use this term are usually trying to deceive by deviating from the simple truths of reproduction, or they are ignorant of the truth.

I just don't find any evidence in the bible that late periods are people.

This sentence is so flawed on the face of it, I cannot make heads or tails of it.

[MHGinTN]

Ping ... if you folks happen to have more direct stats on this 'large percentage of' concepti flushed from the body via menses, please contribute the data to this thread. I would humbly appreciate the most current facts.

[MHGinTN]

I meant to ping you in the post to DungeonMaster.

[DungeonMaster]

I think you have missed the point. The point is about an "organism" having a spirit and soul and a place in eternity. I used the term late period to describe a miscarriage. My wife and I have 8 kids but she had 2 miscarriages. In both cases the "organism" was too small to even be noticed.

I belive some people believe that at the instant of conception God sends a soul and spirit. I guess the fact that I believe so strongly in God's soverignty and election is why I don't try to make up doctrine that is not mentioned in the bible on this topic.

[The Black Knight]

"By the time they left town this morning, they were no longer Rudy supporters."

It took me about 30 seconds with my best friend and his fiance.

Me: "Did you know Rudy is anti-gun?"

Him: "Really? Then **** Rudy"

Her: "Yeah"

Two votes he lost, in 30 seconds. I can GUARANTEE that when his stances actually become known, a TON of people here in NC will go 3rd party or sit out.

[MHGinTN]

Until you have a specific age at which God brings the human spirit to the conceptus, you feel it is a neutral point to destroy the alive unborn? If you intend on shooting into a box, but you hear the voice of children, would you shoot into the box blindly if there is a chance one child is in the box? I doubt it, you're a nurturing father!

Absent the proof that a nascent soul and spirit are not in the conceptus, why would you assume they are not there and destroy a newly conceived life? ... And just to be clear here, a malformed conceptus can have a nascent soul and spirit, so assuming a flawed conceptus does not just isn't reasonable for a Christian person. To set aside God's providence for selfish reasons is not prudent.

[DungeonMaster]

Absent the proof that a nascent soul and spirit are not in the conceptus, why would you assume they are not there and destroy a newly conceived life?

Why would say that I'd do that? I don't do that and I hate abortion. I'm just saying what I think and nothing more.

[MHGinTN]

I think you have missed the point. The point is about an "organism" having a spirit and soul and a place in eternity. Well, let's see if I've missed the point: at what age is the soul and spirit present with the newly conceived organism? ... We both appear to believe the spirit has a place in eternity, at God's providence.

[DungeonMaster]

Well, let's see if I've missed the point: at what age is the soul and spirit present with the newly conceived organism?

I have already stated my thought, that thought doesn't lead to a specific time.

... We both appear to believe the spirit has a place in eternity, at God's providence.

Yes.