Abortion’s Shades of Gray

Townhall ^ | 10-25-07 | Michael Medved

[Sherman Logan]

Giuliani has committed to preserve the Hyde Amendment, banning taxpayer money for abortions... Giuliani applauded the recent Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion... The former mayor supports tougher rules requiring parental notification (with a judicial bypass) for underage girls who seek abortions... Most significant of all, Giuliani has specifically cited strict-constructionists Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts as his models for future justices of the Supreme Court — and all three of those jurists have signaled their support for allowing states more leeway in limiting abortions.

In realistic terms of what can be accomplished, as opposed to rhetorical positions taken with no effect in the real world, this position is identical to GWB's and is at the present time the most pro-lifers can possibly expect to get. I am an agnostic as to whether he would stick with these positions if elected.

Hardline anti-abortion policies pushed with no chance whatsoever of passage may make those pushing them feel good about themselves, but they save no babies. Meanwhile, policies to gradually restrict and control abortion can save the lives of babies today while hopefully contributing to the development of public opinion that can lead to further restrictions.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Is Medved lying, or just incompetent, that he writes an obvious falsehood?

Giuliani supports taxpayer funding of abortion. See and hear it in the link to youtube at post #2.

[SJackson]

By the way, hillary has also offered to compromise on abortion, although she hasn’t explained how. I’ve always pictured it as something like King Solomon and the two women, except that in hillary’s case the baby is actually cut in half.

Well with over half the country supportive of abortion only for the life of the mother, rape or incest, she knows there are votes to be lost by advocating abortion on demand, but I can't imagine her base would let her shade that much, and she'll be appointing activist judges for a host of reasons.

[SJackson]

In realistic terms of what can be accomplished, as opposed to rhetorical positions taken with no effect in the real world, this position is identical to GWB's and is at the present time the most pro-lifers can possibly expect to get….Hardline anti-abortion policies pushed with no chance whatsoever of passage may make those pushing them feel good about themselves, but they save no babies. Meanwhile, policies to gradually restrict and control abortion can save the lives of babies today while hopefully contributing to the development of public opinion that can lead to further restrictions.

In general I’d agree with you, though I’m disappointed the GWB didn’t speak about the issue more. Change will come incrementally through changing peoples minds (calling the opposition abortionists doesn’t help much there), and most likely at the state level. I doubt an amendment would go anywhere. But there’s no reason a President can’t speak out on the morality of the issue, most Americans consider abortion immoral, and move the issue from late term to perhaps discussion of a second and third trimester bans.

[SJackson]

Back to Medved. For him to portray abortion in terms of grays areas is just stupid....Murder is murder. And the murder of innocent unborns is America’s Holocaust.

He's not portraying abortion in terms of gray, he's portraying public opinion in terms of gray. And he's absolutely correct. You'll note that the abortion is murder position is about 4%, for the rest of the country it's a more nuanced issue.

Politically, if you lump someone who would allow abortion in the case of rape or incest, in addition to the mothers life, with a proponet of third trimester of abortion, and refer to them as abortionists (not you), you're losing minds which could be changed. BTW, I suspect this poll understates pro-abortion (all cases) sentiment a bit, greater restrictions being a rather vague term.

 

CBS News Poll. Oct. 12-16, 2007. N=1,143 registered voters nationwide.
						.	.
"What is your personal feeling about abortion? (1) It should be permitted in all cases. (2) It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now. (3) It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life. OR, (4) It should only be permitted to save the woman's life."
						.	.
		All Cases	Greater Restrictions	Rape, Incest, Woman's Life	Only Woman's Life	Never (vol.)	Unsure
		%	%	%	%	%	%
	10/12-16/07	26	16	34	16	4	4
	1/18-21/07	31	16	30	12	5	6
	4/6-9/06	29	17	33	14	4	3
	1/5-8/06	27	15	33	17	5	3
	7/29 - 8/2/05	28	15	33	15	5	4
	7/13-14/05	25	14	38	15	3	5

 

 

 

[mpackard]

I’ve almost finished We the Living. It’s a great work of art and a terrible story. I dont know if I can explain this but in my mind I read it in black and white.

[Sherman Logan]

Meaningful change at the state level cannot take place as long as abortion is a constitutional right that states can’t touch.

[SJackson]

Meaningful change at the state level cannot take place as long as abortion is a constitutional right that states can’t touch.

No it can't, that's the first hurdle.

[MEGoody]

Like most Americans, Giuliani takes a mixed, nuanced approach that defies easy categorizations.

Rudy has that right, and I have the right not to vote for him.

[MEGoody]

In realistic terms of what can be accomplished, as opposed to rhetorical positions taken with no effect in the real world, this position is identical to GWB's and is at the present time the most pro-lifers can possibly expect to get.

However, for Rudy, this statement is a flip flop. He has supported taxpayer funded abortions in the past. I don't trust him and won't be voting for him.

[Albion Wilde]

Where have I heard this before?

Musta been the Clintons' "safe, legal and rare" meme.

Sure, that's the ticket.

[SJackson]

Where have I heard this before?...Musta been the Clintons' "safe, legal and rare" meme.

They've got 2 our of 3.

[Drew68]

he's portraying public opinion in terms of gray. And he's absolutely correct.

I believe this as well.

I've been posting here for a long time and one thing that can be said about Free Republic is that the people who invest a lot of time posting on this forum tend to be very conservative politically (insert Captain Obvious graphic here).

However, people here are so surrounded by those with whom they share the same political, moral and spritual beliefs that they start to think the views they hold represent those of the mainstream.

In this perception, many here are seriously deluded.

"RINOS" and "moderates" are terms of derision around this place. However, "moderate" describes vast segments of American voters --from slightly to the left to slightly to the right. Furthermore, on the "Values Voter" issues of abortion, guns and gays, many Americans don't really care that much one way or the other. This election (like all others) is going to be decided by centrists over issues concerning the economy, jobs, healthcare, and national security.

There is a reason Rudy is doing so well --much to the chagrin of many of the single-issue voters who post here.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’d agree, except I’d add that there’s little difference between a pro-abortionist and a pro-lifer to the millions who never made it out of the womb alive, because the act of electing pro-lifers hasn’t changed the equation much.

Medved’s argument boils down to this: On all the things we can do now about abortion, Giuliani SAYS he is on our side. He will stop federal funding, he will support restrictions like partial birth abortion, and he will appoint judges that could well overturn Roe V. Wade, which is necessary before we can legislate a solution.

If you trust Rudy (and most are leery of that), his argument is sound. Until we actually can PASS legislation, Rudy’s position has the same effect as the rest of our candidates.

I don’t want someone who is not personally opposed to abortion in the White House. Rudy is saying that he IS personally opposed, but he certainly never showed that before. I don’t want my candidate speaking kindly to NARAL. Rudy has.

But in a race between Rudy and Hillary, if I decide to vote solely on which choice will save more babies, I’d have to vote for Rudy. At least a few mothers won’t have the money to kill their children, and a few late-term children won’t get their brains sucked out.

[SJackson]

. However, "moderate" describes vast segments of American voters --from slightly to the left to slightly to the right. Furthermore, on the "Values Voter" issues of abortion, guns and gays, many Americans don't really care that much one way or the other. This election (like all others) is going to be decided by centrists over issues concerning the economy, jobs, healthcare, and national security. ..There is a reason Rudy is doing so well --much to the chagrin of many of the single-issue voters who post here.

That true, additionally most voters are only looking at 3 or 4 issues when selecting a candidate. Abortion just isn’t there for lots of voters, it’s not something many of them think about or deal with often. Gun control, same thing. Eighty million gunowners, but only 4 million interested enough to join the NRA. Add in a handful from other organizations, gun control isn’t something most are thinking about. People are thinking about terrorism, the war, taxes and efficient government, and Rudy is playing to those issues. In my view other candidates equal or exceed him on all, before factoring in honesty, those are the issues he needs to be attacked on.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t trust him, but I trust Hillary will NOT appoint a justice who will overturn Roe.

There WILL be at least one court appointment in the next term. If it’s Rudy vs Hillary, I can vote for a candidate who SAYS he will appoint a good justice, who I don’t trust, or I can vote for Hillary, and pray that she is lying to me and will actually appoint a good justice.

If that’s what you care about, Rudy’s the choice in that instance. At least he SAYS he’ll do the right thing. Hillary promises not to.

Huckabee would be perfect on this issue, but another segment of the conservative movement finds him unacceptable, so we can’t consider him.

NO candidate gains the support of all the conservatives, and every conservative right now thinks their particular point of conservatism is critically important and therefore disqualifying to be opposed. Thus, no conservative can claim they will get the conservative vote.

This means the moderates, even if they were INCLINED to go with the “conservative” choice simply to stop Hillary, can’t — we won’t GIVE them a candidate to support.

If this continues, the moderates will give US a candidate, probably Rudy. We were told that Fred Thompson would be the solution, that if we just got him in all us conservatives could drop our candidates and all would be well.

But for some reason, Fred’s not polling much better than any other candidate, and certainly has not drawn a lot of votes from the other candidates, except Rudy.

Instead, a subset of the conservatives have jumped ship on Fred, and are now chasing after their new hero, Huckabee. But he’s already tainted, and there’s nobody else in the wings.

I’m also beginning to think that Hunter isn’t the one either. Everybody SAYS he would be, if only he was more popular. But if everybdoy who said that was actually putting his name down on the polls, he’d BE popular. So I think people are lying just to avoid getting into a fight over it. If he got above 10% they’d stop lying and start fighting.

Just my opinion.

Meanwhile, I’m sticking with Romney, because he’s done nothing to make me trust him less, and Fred hasn’t done enough or shown enough support for me to put him 1st, even though whenever I can I vote him as my 2nd choice.

[Notary Sojac]

he's portraying public opinion in terms of gray. And he's absolutely correct.

Exactly right. If a majority (or even a large plurality) of voters were convinced that abortion is murder and never allowable under any circumstances, we would not be here arguing about Rudy vs. Hillary, because candidates with their positions on abortion would not be serious contenders for the nomination.

The pro-life movement spends so much time talking to itself, reinforcing its own views by repeated conversations with those with whom it agrees, that it's continually taken by surprise every time a politician with more "nuanced" views is successful.

[Notary Sojac]

Charles, you and I don't get it. We don't understand that a policy that saves X percent of aborted babies every year is worse than a policy that saves none of them, assuming that X < 100.

Many pro-lifers liken their cause to the abolitionist cause of 1830-1860. Using the same logic we see today, it would have been wrong for the Northern states to resist the return of escaping slaves, because that resistance would not have freed every slave, from coast to coast, instantly.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[JSDude1]

Bull shit it’s no longer black-and-white: God’s commands never change: “Thou shall not kill”- How is that a non nuanced belief?