Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 17, 2007, 05:54:55 PM
-
Rudy is running hard to the right.
Giuliani: Both for and against abortion
The contortions presidential candidates must twist themselves into are impressive to behold.
Remember when John Kerry basically said in 2004 that he was for and against the Iraq war? When speaking of his votes on Iraq war funding Kerry said: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, hoping to woo social conservatives as he seeks the GOP nomination, is having his own John Kerry moment. Giuliani is famous for his tough-on-crime policies and his leadership after 9/11. What's less well known is the fact that he's liberal on issues like gun control, gay rights and abortion.
Giuliani was asked by Fox's Sean Hannity recently about his views on abortion.
HANNITY: Where does Rudy Giuliani stand on abortion? And do you think Roe v. Wade is a good law, a bad law?
GIULIANI: Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against.
However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that, and I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes.
So what I do say to conservatives, because then, you know, you want to look at, well, OK, what can we look to that is similar to the way we think? I think the appointment of judges that I would make would be very similar to, if not exactly the same as, the last two judges that were appointed.
------------------------------
What Giuliani is saying is that he's pro-choice but that he'd nominate judges who would most likely oppose abortion. By trying to have it both ways he risks alienating both pro-choice and pro-life voters.
To read the full transcript, click here.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/111687.asp
-
Rudy is doing what he has to to try to get past the Republican primary. I think it's disgusting that a fiscal conservative cannot get past his own party without passing an abortion "litmus test", given how much of a non-issue abortion is in the scheme of things to anyone with an IQ in the triple digits.
-
GIULIANI: Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against.
However, I believe in a woman's right to choose. I think you have to ultimately not put a woman in jail for that, and I think ultimately you have to leave that to a disagreement of conscience and you have to respect the choice that somebody makes.
???
color me confused
???
-
Rudy is doing what he has to to try to get past the Republican primary. I think it's disgusting that a fiscal conservative cannot get past his own party without passing an abortion "litmus test", given how much of a non-issue abortion is in the scheme of things to anyone with an IQ in the triple digits.
Barbara Bush once said this shouldn't be a political issue, but it certainly is. It is part of the Democrat and Republican party national platforms. It is one of the most important issues to many liberal women voters. It is a litmus test for most Supreme Court justices. It is probably the issue the drives most of the controversy regarding Supreme Court nominees during the appointment and confirmation process. Not to mention the millions of abortions that take place each year.
-
???
color me confused
???
What. You understand doublespeak?
-
Barbara Bush once said this shouldn't be a political issue, but it certainly is. It is part of the Democrat and Republican party national platforms. It is one of the most important issues to many liberal women voters. It is a litmus test for most Supreme Court justices. It is probably the issue the drives most of the controversy regarding Supreme Court nominees during the appointment and confirmation process. Not to mention the millions of abortions that take place each year.
I agree with Barbara Bush on this. And you're not telling me anything I don't already know; just because it's current political reality doesn't mean I have to like it. It may be beating my head against the wall, but... most of the readers of this forum tend to be young.... tomorrow's leaders... maybe by consistently pointing out problems with the status quo I can influence a few of them to think with their heads rather than blindly doing what the media tells them to. :-\
-
I agree with Barbara Bush on this. And you're not telling me anything I don't already know; just because it's current political reality doesn't mean I have to like it. It may be beating my head against the wall, but... most of the readers of this forum tend to be young.... tomorrow's leaders... maybe by consistently pointing out problems with the status quo I can influence a few of them to think with their heads rather than blindly doing what the media tells them to. :-\
I don't think this issue ever goes away. I don't remember what the statistics show, but I would imagine the majority of the millions of abortions performed each year are on "young" women?
We are a hair away from Roe v. Wade being overturned. One vote. Imagine the turmoil if and when that happens. Dueling constitutional amendments are sure to follow. And whatever happens (whether it is legal or illegal), about half the voting public will be angry.
If a Republican wins the White House in 08, there will be a firestorm over the replacement of Stevens and/or Ginsberg (the two liberals most likely to retire--or die).
-
I don't think this issue ever goes away. I don't remember what the statistics show, but I would imagine the majority of the millions of abortions performed each year are on "young" women?
We are a hair away from Roe v. Wade being overturned. One vote. Imagine the turmoil if and when that happens. Dueling constitutional amendments are sure to follow. And whatever happens (whether it is legal or illegal), about half the voting public will be angry.
If a Republican wins the White House in 08, there will be a firestorm over the replacement of Stevens and/or Ginsberg (the two liberals most likely to retire--or die).
Although I am a registered republican, I come down squarely on the pro-choice side if asked my opinion. However, it's really a "who cares" issue at this point. I'm too old (37) for it to effect me directly, and if we ever have a daughter and she needs an abortion, we're rich enough to take her wherever it's legal to have it done (Mass? Cali?). So who cares? I have bigger issues to worry about.
-
Although I am a registered republican, I come down squarely on the pro-choice side if asked my opinion. However, it's really a "who cares" issue at this point. I'm too old (37) for it to effect me directly, and if we ever have a daughter and she needs an abortion, we're rich enough to take her wherever it's legal to have it done (Mass? Cali?). So who cares? I have bigger issues to worry about.
Lots of people care. I see this like I do a number of issues that don't personally affect me, like the death penalty, gun control, minimum wage, prayer in public schools (my kids go to private school), etc. None of these issues will likely ever affect me, but they take up a disproportionate part of the political debate.
On the other hand, those who believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder see this as a hugely important issue.
I'd love to see the national discussion start with taxes, which is the most important issue to me (well, probably equally as important are crime and defense). As good as my accountant is, the government still takes way too much of my money. >:( Bring back Malcolm Forbes! :)
-
On the other hand, those who believe life begins at conception and that abortion is murder see this as a hugely important issue.
Yeah.... but those people are idiots. :-\
-
People who debate many of these topics are idiots, myself included.
:)
-
Yeah.... but those people are idiots. :-\
Debatable, but there are millions of these "idiots," which is why this issue will always at the forefront of the political discourse. (I don't believe they're idiots BTW.)
-
From the point of view of those who have grown up under more "socialist" types of government/societies, the idea that people should enjoy the inalienable right to freedom of speech, up to, and including the right to level abuse at various minority groups, and yet on the other hand, find nothing wrong at all with denying a woman the right to choose what she does with her own body, is kind of laughable. Sorry.
PS. If you read the whole transcript, what he says in total sheds slightly more light on his point of view.
-
From the point of view of those who have grown up under more "socialist" types of government/societies, the idea that people should enjoy the inalienable right to freedom of speech, up to, and including the right to level abuse at various minority groups, and yet on the other hand, find nothing wrong at all with denying a woman the right to choose what she does with her own body, is kind of laughable. Sorry.
One of the problems is the woman's body isn't the only issue. It's really about the woman's right to choose whether or not to kill her baby. There are legitimate bodily integrity issues regarding the woman and legitimate issues regarding the unborn child.
And one of the things that really complicates this is you have a bunch of men making these decisions.
-
One of the problems is the woman's body isn't the only issue. It's really about the woman's right to choose whether or not to kill her baby. There are legitimate bodily integrity issues regarding the woman and legitimate issues regarding the unborn child.
And one of the things that really complicates this is you have a bunch of men making these decisions.
That's why we have separation of Church and State. It's mainly a "religious" POV that life begins at conception.
But even if you argue that's not true... God clearly saw nothing wrong with abortion or he would have said so, so who are you to argue?
After consideration and judgement, we routinely snuff out people at public executions. If life is precious from conception to birth, doesn't it follow that life should continue to be precious? If not, and clearly it seems it isn't, it would follow that life isn't particularly extra precious while in the womb, and women, after consideration and judgement, should be able to terminate a "life" that expressly belongs to her and is her possession.
Feel free to choose any answer you like... from a woman whose opinion is shared by millions worldwide.
-
That's why we have separation of Church and State. It's mainly a "religious" POV that life begins at conception.
But even if you argue that's not true... God clearly saw nothing wrong with abortion or he would have said so, so who are you to argue?
After consideration and judgement, we routinely snuff out people at public executions. If life is precious from conception to birth, doesn't it follow that life should continue to be precious? If not, and clearly it seems it isn't, it would follow that life isn't particularly extra precious while in the womb, and women, after consideration and judgement, should be able to terminate a "life" that expressly belongs to her and is her possession.
Feel free to choose any answer you like... from a woman whose opinion is shared by millions worldwide.
Deedee I'm not arguing one side or the other. My point, which I obviously didn't express very well, is that both sides put blinders on when it comes to framing the issue. Pro life advocates ignore the woman's bodily integrity issue. Pro choice advocates ignore and in some respects dehumanize the unborn child (which they call a "fetus" only when discussing abortion).
And this doesn't have to be a debate over whether life begins at conception. What about second trimester abortions, where there is no question we are dealing with a fully formed and some cases viable baby. What about third trimester abortions, where we're often dealing with a viable baby? That isn't a religious issue at all. But even if it is, so what? People with religious views have just as much right to have their voices heard as non-religious people.
I don't see this as a church-state separation issue at all. I believe very strongly in church-state separation. What I don't believe in is muzzling anyone who has a viewpoint that is either expressly or implicitly "religious" in nature.
-
That's why we have separation of Church and State. It's mainly a "religious" POV that life begins at conception.
But even if you argue that's not true... God clearly saw nothing wrong with abortion or he would have said so, so who are you to argue?
After consideration and judgement, we routinely snuff out people at public executions. If life is precious from conception to birth, doesn't it follow that life should continue to be precious? If not, and clearly it seems it isn't, it would follow that life isn't particularly extra precious while in the womb, and women, after consideration and judgement, should be able to terminate a "life" that expressly belongs to her and is her possession.
Feel free to choose any answer you like... from a woman whose opinion is shared by millions worldwide.
DeeDee, I wanna have your baby! You Go Girl!! ;D
-
It's mainly a "religious" POV that life begins at conception.
::)
wise man say if it isnt a life there is no need to have an abortion ;)
-
And my point is, there are very few Westernized countries left in the world, where a woman's right to an abortion is even in question... there's the US and Poland. Most countries have time limits, wherein the woman has a window to make her decision, which is fair. That this is a viable platform for a candidate to run on, and a deciding or polarizing issue for people to cast their votes, seems laughable to inhabitants of other countries. And to most people who live in secular societies where there is a clear separation of Church and State, it seems obvious that the legality of abortion is an issue largely for the religious. Strange since there is no mention of abortion being an abomination anywhere in the old or new testaments.
-
::)
wise man say if it isnt a life there is no need to have an abortion ;)
Wise man also say... if the thought offends you... I think you know the rest. ;)
By your logic, cancer cells also have "life" since they are able to grow and flourish within us.
DeeDee, I wanna have your baby! You Go Girl!!
;)
-
I don't think the fact that the majority of the world is or isn't permitting abortion is relevant to whether it should be legal in this country. There are a number of countries that don't have the death penalty. I don't think that is relevant either to whether it should be legal in this country.
And I've never studied the Bible-based implications of abortion, so I don't really have an opinion about whether it is or is not discussed there. Although I do recall someone once mentioning a verse or two that talked about harming an unborn child. Cannot remember. And I don't particularly care to look it up. :)
-
And my point is, there are very few Westernized countries left in the world, where a woman's right to an abortion is even in question... there's the US and Poland. Most countries have time limits, wherein the woman has a window to make her decision, which is fair. That this is a viable platform for a candidate to run on, and a deciding or polarizing issue for people to cast their votes, seems laughable to inhabitants of other countries. And to most people who live in secular societies where there is a clear separation of Church and State, it seems obvious that the legality of abortion is an issue largely for the religious. Strange since there is no mention of abortion being an abomination anywhere in the old or new testaments.
its silly to say that western socities doing something makes it right, and it shows a disrespect for history (was it right when people owned slaves, tortured and murdered jews in the streets, raped women with impunity minus property damage compensation etc)
why are time limits fair? ... this implies that you think at some point it would be wrong to have an abortion, specifically, what point in time would that be and why?
.
i wouldnt argue the necessity of abortion for a second; abortion is def utilitarian in that the kind of women who have them shouldnt be procreating because their kids would probably be ill raised
but
to not acknowledge abortion as an act that kills a human is nonsensical (think of what would happen if you didnt have one, thered be a human) ... its rationalizing pure and simpl... much easier to think of it as killing a couple miscellaneous cells than to deal with the reality of killing your own child cause your selfish (and your society is as well)
-
By your logic, cancer cells also have "life" since they are able to grow and flourish within us.
cancer is living cells ... but cancer isnt "flouriushing" as an embryo :)
-
to not acknowledge abortion as an act that kills a human is nonsensical (think of what would happen if you didnt have one, thered be a human) ... its rationalizing pure and simpl... much easier to think of it as killing a couple miscellaneous cells than to deal with the reality of killing your own child cause your selfish (and your society is as well)
I gave three answers... Didn't you read the last one? :)
By your argument, every egg is a life, so women who aren't getting out there and actively making sure each and every one is getting its fair chance of becoming fertilized are basically murdering thousands of babies. When she dies, she's taking a bunch more lives with her. That makes every woman a murderer.
The time limits are there because eventually the zygote becomes a fetus, which after many months, has a slim chance of existing outside the body. Late term abortions are also more dangerous for the person having them.
If a woman dies in a car accident when she's two days pregnant, are two death certificates issued?
-
I gave three answers... Didn't you read the last one? :)
By your argument, every egg is a life, so women who aren't getting out there and actively making sure each and every one is getting its fair chance of becoming fertilized are basically murdering thousands of babies. When she dies, she's taking a bunch more lives with her. That makes every woman a murderer.
The time limits are there because eventually the zygote becomes a fetus, which after many months, has a slim chance of existing outside the body. Late term abortions are also more dangerous for the person having them.
If a woman dies in a car accident when she's two days pregnant, are two death certificates issued?
unless womens eggs suddenly turn into babies WITHOUT sperm .... the short answer is no :)
as much as i weep for the woman having the late term abotion (2 birds/1 stone if they die in jimmy's eyes) ... ill focus on the argument about living outside the womb: being self sufficient is not a prereq for being alive (a guy with 2 broken arms who cant feed himsefl isnt alive if thats the case)
no babies will be living without their mothers care (weather thats care in the womb or in the first 2 someodd years of post natal life) .... if were allowed to kill anything thats not self sufficient we should be allowed to kill babies up to the point where they can take care of themsevles, not to mention anyone on medication, life support etc
as for 2 death certificates being issued, death certificates kill people who are "legally" born ... if she was 8.5 months preg and the baby could survive outside the womb, would there be 2 certificates? :)
-
unless womens eggs suddenly turn into babies WITHOUT sperm .... the short answer is no :)
as much as i weep for the woman having the late term abotion (2 birds/1 stone if they die in jimmy's eyes) ... ill focus on the argument about living outside the womb: being self sufficient is not a prereq for being alive (a guy with 2 broken arms who cant feed himsefl isnt alive if thats the case)
no babies will be living without their mothers care (weather thats care in the womb or in the first 2 someodd years of post natal life) .... if were allowed to kill anything thats not self sufficient we should be allowed to kill babies up to the point where they can take care of themsevles, not to mention anyone on medication, life support etc
as for 2 death certificates being issued, death certificates kill people who are "legally" born ... if she was 8.5 months preg and the baby could survive outside the womb, would there be 2 certificates? :)
It's kind of pointless to argue when life begins because people have differing opinions and no one is possessed of the divine knowledge necessary to make the distinction. I personally would never have an abortion, but I don't believe life begins at conception. You have some other viewpoint on the subject.
But going back to the earlier reference to history... historically speaking, men have not been overwhelmingly great about taking responsibility for their own. Not even so long ago, women who found themselves with child sans husband, were ostracized, the children shunned etc... History tells us that when left to their own devices and without the legal binds of marriage, men are incredibly "selfish" when it comes to "doing the right thing." To a great degree, women have abortions because the father wants them to. Isn't it a little arrogant to hold women up to some higher standard just because some societal value decrees that they're "supposed" to be selfless or more generous.
History also notes that women have been aborting unwanted babies at least since Cleopatra's time. Statistics tells us that women continue to have abortions even when the procedure is illegal. It seems pointless to enforce some law requiring women to have children, when historically that law is unenforcable. Obviously, there is something wrong with that law.
Statistics show that the women who have abortions are for the most part without the financial means to support them, more often than not they are without a support system i.e. no father in the picture, or are otherwise unfit to raise a child. You've said yourself that abortion should be available for at least some of these reasons... so where is the argument? Statistics show that women literally have millions of abortions each year. What would this already over-populated planet look like if all of these millions of unwanted babies were foisted into stretched to the limit welfare systems or abused in horrible homes? I'm not sure what you're arguing... you say abortion is necessary, and yet women are selfish for having them ???
-
I'm not sure what you're arguing... you say abortion is necessary, and yet women are selfish for having them ???
Jimmy just hates women. ;D
-
It's kind of pointless to argue when life begins because people have differing opinions and no one is possessed of the divine knowledge necessary to make the distinction. I personally would never have an abortion, but I don't believe life begins at conception. You have some other viewpoint on the subject.
i dont see it as pointless at all, not all opinions were created equal .... just like lawyers argue their sides to the "reasonable individual" axiom, the same can be done here; using precedent and implication (just as i did re surviving outside the body) to see the situation as objectively and logically as possible...
the problem is people cannot look at the issue without thinking of the morality....this leads to logical absurdities, like saying life doesnt begin at contraception (if its not a life than what exactly is it you are aborting? :D) because if it did begin at contraception abortion automatically = murder = wrong when youre considering moarilty
But going back to the earlier reference to history... historically speaking, men have not been overwhelmingly great about taking responsibility for their own. Not even so long ago, women who found themselves with child sans husband, were ostracized, the children shunned etc... History tells us that when left to their own devices and without the legal binds of marriage, men are incredibly "selfish" when it comes to "doing the right thing." To a great degree, women have abortions because the father wants them to. Isn't it a little arrogant to hold women up to some higher standard just because some societal value decrees that they're "supposed" to be selfless or more generous.
but its 'a womans body, and a womans right to choose blah blah' ... this is why its not the mans decision to have an abortion, and since its not his body, why should he have to do anything if he doesnt want to?
whose trying to hold woman up to a higher standard, i never said men were any better ...
History also notes that women have been aborting unwanted babies at least since Cleopatra's time. Statistics tells us that women continue to have abortions even when the procedure is illegal. It seems pointless to enforce some law requiring women to have children, when historically that law is unenforcable. Obviously, there is something wrong with that law.
history tells us people have been raping, stealing and murdering since even before cleopatra, even when these action are illegal people continue steal, rape and murder ... :D
Statistics show that the women who have abortions are for the most part without the financial means to support them, more often than not they are without a support system i.e. no father in the picture, or are otherwise unfit to raise a child. You've said yourself that abortion should be available for at least some of these reasons... so where is the argument? Statistics show that women literally have millions of abortions each year. What would this already over-populated planet look like if all of these millions of unwanted babies were foisted into stretched to the limit welfare systems or abused in horrible homes? I'm not sure what you're arguing... you say abortion is necessary, and yet women are selfish for having them ???
they couldnt put the babies up for adoption?
i love abortion, it means more earth foy jimmy and it should be legal (and in some cases mandatory)
my arguement is that calling it anything other than murder is illogical and that its selfish thing to do, while at the same time being selfless(because it helps society) :)
-
i dont see it as pointless at all, not all opinions were created equal .... just like lawyers argue their sides to the "reasonable individual" axiom, the same can be done here; using precedent and implication (just as i did re surviving outside the body) to see the situation as objectively and logically as possible...
the problem is people cannot look at the issue without thinking of the morality....this leads to logical absurdities, like saying life doesnt begin at contraception (if its not a life than what exactly is it you are aborting? :D) because if it did begin at contraception abortion automatically = murder = wrong when youre considering moarilty
I sure hope life doesn't begin at contraception... or I'm in big doodoo. ;)
The point being, you believe one thing I believe another. I don't believe a hunk of dough, now matter how well-formed it is, is what you would call bread until it comes out of the oven. You believe it's bread from the moment someone mixed the ingredients with active yeast. But I would hazard a guess that if you were walking past a dump and saw two things - a newly born infant, and . - but you could only save one, you would save the newly born infant, because that is a viable person, the other is not.
I don't look at the issue with any kind of morality in mind... I look at it with extremely cold practicality. I don't really care what other people might call it. Murder... the removal of some cells... tomaytoe, tomahtoe. The issue to me is no. 1) people must have a right to do what they wish with their own bodies... that means the right to refuse treatment for cancer, or to terminate a pregnancy while in the early stages.
they couldnt put the babies up for adoption?
i love abortion, it means more earth foy jimmy and it should be legal (and in some cases mandatory)
my arguement is that calling it anything other than murder is illogical and that its selfish thing to do, while at the same time being selfless(because it helps society)
It's difficult, at best, to place unwanted babies as it is. There are 46 million abortions performed worldwide each year. Imagine if these terminated pregnancies translated into actual children arriving on this crowded planet EVERY YEAR. Do you think there are adequate homes for them? Even if only half of these were born into abject poverty and crack ho moms... that still makes over 20 million of them. It's unfathomable.
but its 'a womans body, and a womans right to choose blah blah' ... this is why its not the mans decision to have an abortion, and since its not his body, why should he have to do anything if he doesnt want to?
whose trying to hold woman up to a higher standard, i never said men were any better ...
You know I adore you to distraction, but do you think this has made your case any better? Women should be unselfish enough to burden themselves with an unwanted child, and yet, the father walks away free of any responsibility? That *is* the way it is... and that's why women lobbied for many years to have access to abortion if they need it... to level the playing field and assure their own autonomy. That's why the christian fundies are so adament about making the procedure illegal. God has nothing to say about abortion, and there is no mention of it being a "bad thing" in either of the testaments. God does not care. The simple fact is, that the very idea of a woman having autonomy over her own body weakens the patriarchal style of family the fundies espouse. It's purely political.
-
I'll answer you more thoroughly tomorrow as the pre-bday white I have enjoyed this evening as made me too joyous and merry to respond. :D
...but did you mean contraception, or conception? If life begins at contraception I think I'd have more kids by now than your average Hutterite.
-
schmart ass >:(
join me on the new board hun!
Lol!
Which board buns?