Posted on 02/13/2007 11:35:56 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
"We don't need a perfect conservative but it would be sure be nice to have one who doesn't support murdering babies using my money and interprets the second amendment as my right to shoot squirrels. Is that asking too much?"
It's much too simplistic to think of the abortion issue in those terms.
Ronald Reagan was against abortion but his Supreme court appointments were a disaster.
Rudy has said many times that he would appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Scalia and Roberts to the SCOTUS. If he does that and I have no reason to doubt his word, his pro choice stand in the past is meaningless.
That is where the abortion issue will be settled once and for all.
Well this is likely to turn into a bash Rudy and by extention his suporters on here. Sooooooooooo. Off to read. :) How are you?
I'm good, deffie.
You're getting closer to the big day. Lots of excitement, I bet.
Yes, and lot's to do! :)
An emphatic yes. I'm surprised you are ignorant of that fact. I'll give you just one example. Bush signed the ban on partial birth abortion that Clinton vetoed. Based on his previous statements Rudy would not sign the law. You see the problem here?
Just how can the president affect the abortion issue?
Aside from judicial appointments; by signing laws enacted by Congress, by executive order forbidding taxpayer money be used to fund abortion overseas, by vetoing the treatment of human embryos as a commodity, by using the bully pulpit and by leading his party in the direction of not intentionally killing innocent human life. By the appointment of judges. On that I trust Jim Olson's opinion of Giuliani's character: He will appoint strict constructionists.
My arse, the guy thinks the second amendment is for hunting and he has spent his entire life as an apostate Catholic preaching the gospel of "choice", read abortion.
Why do you ask?
It has nothing to do with protection of the right to life. The preborn are innocent. Some adults may well have forfeited that right as a ci=consequence of their own actions.
Oh I see now. OK.
So how do you work that out?
Sometimes the truth is quite simple. Here it is regarding Rudy and abortion. He favors it. Until his recent political bullcrap about the life of the mother he has supported abortion from conceptus until one second before the little toe emerges from the birth canal. He does this a supposed practicing Catholic and what's more he favors doing it with taxpayer money. That's the simple truth. You can turn a blind eye to it, I won't.
Ronald Reagan was against abortion but his Supreme court appointments were a disaster.
Not disastrous, not ideal either. Kennedy is pro life and well may vote for the Ban on murdering late term babies. O'Connor not as good as Kennedy but exponentially better than John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford the last pro choice Republican POTUS. Rudy is from the Gerald Ford wing of the Republican PArty. Perhaps you should not be quite so sanguine about who or what he will appoin to SCOTUS?
Rudy has said many times that he would appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Scalia and Roberts to the SCOTUS. If he does that and I have no reason to doubt his word, his pro choice stand in the past is meaningless.
Right. Why would a man who has been a life long supporter of abortion on demand do anything that would conflict with that philosophy? Because he is a constructionist? What constructionist thinks the Second Amendment ackonwledges a right to hunt? What constructionist thinks that Roe should be settled law? What constructionist thinks the federal government can not legislate against illegal aliens? I'll tell you, the Rudy type of constructionist.
That is where the abortion issue will be settled once and for all.
In the courts? LOL, what construct of the constituion gives the federal courts this power?
No, but he did mention him a few days ago when some nut called up and started whining about the fact that Ron Paul was not getting any attention. Hannity reminded him that he would have Ron Paul on some time and also Duncan Hunter. But admonished him to realize that the 1% and 2% are not going to win.
Oh really? So wearing the uniform and killing the enemy eliminates the soldier from being pro life when it comes to killing unborn babies? What brand of relativism is it that equates the innocent with the guilty? The good with the evil? The convicted by due process from no process at all?
Okay, use that standard....
Roe v Wade 1973 (33years ago)...we've had Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush. There were 5 Republicans, two Democrats, 7 Republican terms of office (not all complete), 3 Democrat terms of office.
Not all conservative appointments turned out to be conservative after all. No guarantees on judical appointments...
War on Terror needs to be fought and won...now. A nuclear attack by radical Islamists must be prevented.
Come to think of it...if the Islamists win, abortion will be outlawed...Hmmm.
The problem is that abortion is a medically necessary procedure in a minuscule number of cases. IE. the life of the mother. The very life, not the life style. Now the right wants it banned, The left goes off on this intellectually dishonest course that it should legal, safe and rare.
Now certainly the child's right to live does not super cede the mother's right to live or her other children's right to have a mother. On the other hand unless the birth of the baby is actually going to be the cause of death to the mother, then there is no need for an abortion.
Being consistently pro-life is not a perfect thing, as this is not a perfect world. I am against the death penalty unless the person is one of those who fall into a minuscule category. What is that category? It's the predator category. It is true, absolutely that there is a very small percentage of individuals that even if you locked them down for 23 hours a day, would STILL pose a threat to society. If they can't kill the public, they will kill their jailers and staff. They must be prevented from doing that and the only way to make sure they do not kill again is to kill them. Soldiers wearing a uniform and police officers wearing a uniform are protecting the larger society. It's justifiable for them to use force, deadly force to protect the rights of the many, over the rights of the few.It is their duty.
I am hardly a moral relativist. I have been trained in moral theology and I was merely trying to point out that if this debate over who is pro-life and who is not is ever to move forward, we must define the terms. Not everyone is on the same page.
Waving signs at each other and vilifying everyone that does not agree with you 100 percent does not solve anything. The gentleman who I was directing the comment to, bashes me on the Catholic threads on a regular basis, so I no longer go on them. I just wanted to know where he was coming from.
Venom? :-} You have a thin skin friend. I posed questions to point out the fallacy of your argument. Your last post attacks the logic of your first post. Evidently my questions led to some soul searching.
No need to thank me.
You might consider for Duncan's sake not pushing him, if you are going to be just argumentative and arrogant. I see your over all tone towards all you responded to. AFTER the show, BTW.
Rudy is a pro abortion Catholic who gives Catholicism a black eye. I'll tell the truth about his views and nothing but the truth. But I'll tell it with, shall we say, vigor.
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.