I would love to see someone ask him this question!
Pro-Life Ping
Ping!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Good piece. As a Catholic, Giuliani cannot support abortion. Period.
Can I ask some opinions on Abortion? The way I read the article and the responses is that Rudy has a moral duty to stop abortion. Is that right or am I misreading?
Now if the courts overturned Roe V. Wade then the issue of abortion goes back to the individual states and as President Rudy won’t have much say except in certain cases like funding abortions for federal workers for example.
Now does the Pro life Movement wants Rudy and the Federal Government to ban all abortion through the use of enacting laws or by court decisions?
Taney gets a bad rap, IMHO. Scott was decided 7-2, and clearly grounded in the Constitution and its history. Roe was not. The analogy is a bad one.
ML/NJ
This analogy is severely flawed.
When he made this statement Douglass was not commenting on the Dred Scott decision, he was arguing for his "squatter sovereignty" Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed the settlers in these territories to vote on whether to permit slavery in the territory.
For the Scott decision to be fully analogous to the Roe decision, it would have forced all states to allow slavery within their boundaries, with the decision to practice slavery left up to each individual, not the state.
Recent research has shown that Chief Justice Taney was working on exactly such a decision.
Dougless never opposed the right of every state to decide for itself whether to allow or prohibit slavery. Roe removed the right of every state to make such a decision. Since abortion has been removed from the political process, there is nothing to vote on.
Its very simple. People in the legal profession are taught to have such a high respect for stare decisis, letting an existing decision stand, and respecting the law as it is written and decided, that they are held hostage to it that they can’t ethically mold their views to the contrary. I’ll liken that to a few lines from The Untouchables, where the reporter asked Eliot Ness, as played by Kevin Costner, his feelings on prohibition, “It is the Law of the Land.” Contrast that with his answer to a reporter near the end after Capone goes to prison when the reporter asks his feeling about them repealing porhibition, “I think I’ll go have a drink then.”
IOW, lawyer/lawman types are so hostage to the idea of respecting the law that persons of good will that otherwise disagree with it feel they have to lend their support to it, rather than working to change the law... They lack cahonas..
Why could a 75-year-old daughter not use the same reasoning to apply to a "right to choose" to get rid of an elderly mother whose care is threatening her own health? (And don't say it is not realistic to claim the health risk that many face!)
Or, why should the nation's law not provide that same "right to choose" to both men and women who consider another individual to be a threat to their personal health or wellbeing, an inconvenience to their lifestyle, or merely a burden they cannot take care of?
Clearly, America's laws against the taking of life do not allow for a citizen's "right to choose" murder as an optional way of solving a personal dilemma, no matter how perplexing or burdensome.
Unmask the faulty logic of the fence sitters, and let them articulate what is their real reason for favoring the taking of a life in the womb! Is it not possiblly because they do not see children in the womb as beings "endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Would he? Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union than with ending slavery.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
Rudy is wrong on abortion. But the comparison to Lincoln is lame.
I wonder when I stand before my Creator, will he deem slavery more an abomination against human life than the slaughter of the unborn?
I also wonder since several states have fallen over themselves offering apologies for ancestrial participation in the then legal slave trade, how those same ancestors would view our current “legal” practice of abortion and if they’d not only apologize for the practice - but apologize for having part in giving us breath and the ability to murder our own.
May God have mercy upon us and allow us stand upon the hope that one day our descendants who survive abortion clinics would offer an apology to the world in our behalf for our legalized murders.
.
Numerous of them are to be found wanting.