Posted on 04/04/2007 12:52:50 PM PDT by KantianBurke
Well, let's see. Rudy wants to send folks a bill to cover expenses for abortions, even though they consider it morally reprehensible and equivalent to contract murder. I think he's a lower life form than terrorists. Chew on that.
“It’s also nice to be able to have a discussion without some idiots flaming away at you...”
Not only is it nice - it’s GREAT fun.
97% of the folks on FR are terrific - it’s incredible to see and appreciate the varying views, the wisdom, and the passion in this country.
Oh man - the passion.
Americans are the best.
Since when did killing your baby become a constitutional right? I guess we can kill them after they are born also then, right? I like the question Pelosi was asked but never answered: When does an abortion become murder? how far out of the womb must a baby be before it is murder? She never gave a straight answer. I say killing it in the womb is murder. All you have to do is ask yourself this question: Is this child(or fetus if you are into that)alive? If the answer is yes, then it is murder, if it is alive, and it must be, then it is murder to kill it.
Oh damn, and I’m supposed to feel bad for not supporting “electable” Rudy?
Right.
Women carry to almost term and then have a traumatic abortion because they are monsters.
I won’t call you any names.
Not to be picky, it’s a great list, but you forgot “Diallo.”
Yeah, we know, you rested it two times.
“....If you want to answer with the “he promised to appoint strict constructionist” defense, remember, according to rudy, roe v wade is a strict constructionist stance....”
I’ve never heard Rudy say Roe V Wade was “strict constructionist.” Do you have a source?
“That is no way to have a productive discussion. “
You rudyboosters are running into a big problem. Seems your new tactic is now to abandon any debates when tough questions come up by acting like you’re “above” those vile questions.
The question was germane. The intent - to reveal any hypocrisy WRT the support of rudy on “defying law” compared to your original question.
I imagine that’s why you don’t want to answer it.
Diallo will be on his “Rudy sings the Classics” CD scheduled for release later today.
Wrong Jake, it has every thing to do with being potus, it goes to character, anyone who advocates killling a child is not viable conservative, or human for that matter, candidate for POTUS. This man says it is ok to kill babies and that we should pay for it! This isn't strictly about choice, he is saying tax payers should pay for every slut that wants to use abortion for birth control. He says it is a constitutional right, therefore we should pay for it. How about buying me a new .45 colt, the new minature, it is my right to keep and bear arms so how about you taxpayers coming up with the bucks for my new firearms? Rudy is dead wrong on this and if you can support it you are truly brain dead.
Some people rejoice when others have been convinced to their side. Not you.
People change opinions. With age. With education. With knowledge. With wisdom.
And with all of the above some can even discern the difference between pandering and evolving.
You are just too tough a debater for me flash, and I just can’t handle it, so I cut and run.
Try to engage without sounding hysterical.
The issues you raise are real - no need to flame out with words that serve no one.
At this point - I fear you having any kind of firearm.
Sweetness and light. Hugs and kisses. Bunnies and dead babies.
Know something about you and your Rudybot buddies? You are evil.
More than 15,000 partial birth infanticides are done each year in America. Of that sum, 80% are done prior to the thirtieth week (normal term is 40 weeks) {Guttmacher Institute data} ... but 99.9% of those children being slaughtered then exploited are alive prior to the beginning of the kill. Do you even know what a partial birth abortion is and how it is done?
Thanks for the kind and “thoughtful” words.
Having trouble sleeping? ,,, 3%
And endlessly proud of it.
Supporting a ghoul who would force the rest of us to pay for the slaughter of the most innocent and helpless.
“....So, you’re going to praise Hillary and Obama now for being consistantly pro-abortion? You’ve really gone off the deep end.....”
That’s a rather obtuse analogy. Rudy could just as well have done the same thing the other Republican candidates have done, switch his position on abortion for the sake of passing the “litmus test.” He didn’t do that and I respect him for it. Sue me.
“I’ve never heard Rudy say Roe V Wade was “strict constructionist.” Do you have a source?”
In those exact words? Not yet. But there are several where the only obviously conclusion is that he believes that to be true.
He calls it “good constitutional law” (the george will interview that’s in the CPAC video) and one where he says that his view of the constituion is that “you have to leave the ultimate choice to a person”, meaning that pro-choice is in the constitution. (I’ll post a thread with a link to that video later today or tomorrow and ping you if you want).
It’s pretty plain to see from all his talking on the issue that he believes he is a ‘strict constructionist’ and that roe v wade and pro choice are in line with a ‘strict constructionist’ philosophy. Otherwise, if they weren’t, why would he claim that they’re in the constitution, and why would he as a “strict constructionist” support roe v wade?
You can really only draw one conclusion from all that. Logic follows that if he believes roe v wade is in line with a ‘strict constructionist’ philosophy, and he promises to appoint ‘strict constructionist’ judges, then those judges would have similar views on whether roe v wade was good constitutional law and whether the right to ‘choice’ was in the constitution.
There’s not many other ways you can interpret his statements.
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.