Posted on 04/05/2007 9:14:04 AM PDT by Barney Gumble
That may be your opinion, but if he supports the law allowing abortions and there is federal legislation supporting funding then what you propose is that he should state his opposition to the law instead of stating his support for the law. But in the end you have him actually doing nothing because he can't.
If roe v wade never happened, it would then be his job as mayor to decide on new york’s abortion policy, absent a state law that prevents him from doing that.
And if frogs had wings...Sorry, you don't get to change the assumptions to suit your whims. RvW is law. Live with it or lump it.
I want a President who will appoint judges who are smart enough to know there is no “right to abortion” anywhere in the constitution,
The Constitution doesn't list rights, it enumerates some and specifically states that the list is not comprehensive or all inclusive. Individuals don't get their rights from the Constitution, so there are many, many rights that are not anywhere in print but just as valid as those that are in print.
and those judges would return abortion to where it was pre roe v wade - a states rights issue, which means states will decide abortion policy.
LOL...you've moved off of what the President should do to what the judges should do! Again, you don't get to change the assumptions.
And then if there is any nationwide move to ban abortion or make abortion a constitutional right, it has to go through the amendment process to actually exist. In that case, if the president is pro-life, he would be able to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to support the amendment, since he doesn’t have any actual role in the amendment process.
Ok so what it comes down to is that you'd like the President to appoint judges hoping they'd change RvW and that you'd like him to use his bully pulpit to influence public opinion.
So you really don't expect either the mayor or the President to actually do much of anything then.
But you can sure rail against what they do even though you don't have a clue what they really should do!
You obviously didn't listen to the quote or read the transcript.
Federal law already allows funding and he supports that in some cases.
I don't think that "your" money is used in any abortions. I think that "your" money is being used to research bovine flatulence as a cause for global warming.
Government spending is at an all-time. Rudy's postured himself as a fiscal conservative, but now he wants to fund someone else's choice with your money. I don't think that will help.
Don’t know about Non-Sequiter’s behavior on CW threads, so I don’t know. If a lie is posted, I will correct it.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Rudy did a great job cleaning up NYC. I just don’t think he should be anywhere near the Oval Office.
Calling me a Rudybooster is revealing dishonesty on your part not a shred of partisan ship on mine.
I see threads like this and see people calling Rudy “Pro abortion” then hear him state the opposite.
I already know that the words “pro abortion” are propoganda and more than a little dishonest, as are those that use them.
Same with “Rudy booster”. Dishonest propoganda.
You can ping me to the immigration threads all you want, but I don’t have any interest in discussing it. None.
And not wishing to discuss immigration on an abortion thread means only that I’m willing to focus on this thread’s topic.
You rudybots sure can spin.
I have to say, I rarely see flawed ‘logic’ such as your from conservatives- but it’s standard fare for liberals.
Another fun thing - you say you don’t know much about rudy, but you keep telling people who DO that they’re wrong about his positions.
Just like liberals do.
And you refuse to answer direct questions that would reveal the truth about your positions.
Just like liberals do.
Hmm. There’s a pattern here. What’s that quacking??? Is that a duck????
Personally, there is probably something more useful to do with one's life. But that's just me.
Wow....you accuse me of being a liberal all the time you are calling me dergatory names.
I heard the tape of him stating that he was personally against abortion.
I read you saying that he is pro abortion and I already know that term is propoganda.
You are saying the exact opposite of what he is saying and using the fact that he supports existing federal law (which you indirectly admit that he cannot change) that protects rights that he personally opposes.
I’m the one who points this out yet you think I’m propgating positions? Wrong.
He says he’s opposed to abortion and you say he pro abortion.
Something ain’t right there and the best you can do to explain this conflict is call me names.
I think we’ve all seen enough.
Thank you very much for playing and you can get a home version of the game on your way out.
“I see threads like this and see people calling Rudy “Pro abortion” then hear him state the opposite.”
So again, you’re one of the people who will believe what a politician says when he’s trying to get the GOP nomination, even though that claim goes against his record for nearly the last 20 years.
Let’s just get that straight. Since this abortion IS the topic of the thread, you shouldn’t have a problem answering that question. Let me restate it so there’s no confusion:
Which holds more weight with you:
1. A nearly 20 year record of supporting organizations like NARAL, praising margaret (eugenics) sanger, fighting to keep public funding of abortions, no opposition to PBA, etc.
or
2. His recent campaign statement that he is “personally against abortion”.
The answer will be interesting. Will you believe the same thing coming from other politicians to? That’s the standard you’d be setting up - ignore their records but consider their statements meant to win office as gospel truth.
Something ain’t right there and the best you can do to explain this conflict is call me names.”
other people have repeatedly tried to point out the truth to you. All you’ve done is ignore it and say “well, golly gee, he says he’s against abortion so that’s all that matters”.
That’s how liberals handle things like this. If you’re doing the same things they do, that would be your fault for doing them, not my fault for pointing them out.
One thing I’ve learned is that anyone that uses the term pro abortion is one that should not be taken seriously on the issue because they have tendencies to propogandize instead of look for truth.
I have no doubt that Rudy supports a woman’s right to choose to kill her baby.
But until someone can show me where he is actually “for” the act and not just “for” the choice, I’ll have to believe that those using the term “proabortion” are willingly distorting the truth.
Personally, I think that women shouldn’t abort their babies. But should I be in the position to make each choice on behalf of each woman? Should you?
And if you would actually allow another human being to make a choice, does that make you pro abortion?
Or is the only way one can escape the pro abortion label is to ban the act, burn the clinics, and kill the practitioners and participants?
How about rudy saying he’d give his daughter money for an abortion (phil donohue show, 1989, quoted in newsday)
Beyond that, “pro abortion” is seeing a right to an abortion somewhere in the constitution where none exists - since abortion isn’t mentioned in the constitution, it is a state’s rights issue, and states should be allowed to set their own policy.
Rudy has the belief that Roe v wade is good constitutional law and that the right to “choice” exists in the constitution where there is none. That is a pro-abortion stance.
Sheesh.
He supports taxpayer funding of abortions. The interview even repeated the question and he confired it. Watch the youtube video. What more do you need? I'm sure you support any redistribution of wealth scheme.
http://www.rudysreallyliberal.com/ABORTION.html
ABORTION
“I’d give my daughter the money for it [an abortion].”
“I never called for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade.”
Rudy Giuliani
New York Newsday, September 1, 1989
“See, I don’t equate abortion with murdering a child, which I guess puts me
in conflict with the teaching of the Catholic church. Catholics in public office
often make the mistake, a subtle but important one, of saying they agree
with the teaching of the church, but because I’m in public office, I have to
put conscience aside and enforce the law. They haven’t thought out the
implication of what they’re saying. If you agree with the church, there’s no
difference between murdering a one-year-old and eliminating a fetus – it’s
the same act. There is a moral consequence to the elimination of a fetus,
but it’s not the same thing as murder.”
Rudy Giuliani
New York, May 25, 1987
(Emphasis Added)
Mr. Giuliani has said that New York State law should not be changed to
outlaw the [Partial-Birth Abortion] procedure.
New York Times, January 7, 1998
For now, the mayor’s position appears firm: Earlier this month, Mr. Giuliani
told The Albany Times Union that he would not support a ban on late-term
abortions and that he supports the state’s abortion law. “New York
shouldn’t be ashamed of the law,” Mr. Giuliani said. “That law, I think, is a
fair one and works to create the necessary scope of freedom and
prohibition.”
At a City Hall news conference this week, Mr. Giuliani brushed off a
question about late-term abortion, saying that “my position on abortion is
precisely the same today as it was yesterday. I haven’t changed over-night.”
New York Times, November 26, 1999
[Giuliani] would continue the city’s discretionary spending of $10 million a
year on abortions not otherwise eligible for state or Federal reimbursement.
New York Times, March 9, 1989
As mayor, Rudy Giuliani will uphold a woman’s right of choice to have an
abortion. Giuliani will fund all city programs which provide abortions to
insure that no woman is deprived of her right due to an inability to pay. He
will oppose reductions in state funding. He will oppose making abortion
illegal.
New York Times, August 4, 1989
(Emphasis Added)
The Constitution does not list rights.
The Consitution limits government, not citizens.
Therefore there is a right to privacy and other non listed, non enumerated rights.
Abortion should be a state issue, not a federal issue.
“Pro abortion” is an intentionally inflammatory term of pure propoganda and those that use it are attempting to frame other people in a derogatory light regardless of the truth and as you’ve defined it has very little real meaning at all.
Hey, been real, got to go.
“The Constitution does not list rights.
The Consitution limits government, not citizens.
Therefore there is a right to privacy and other non listed, non enumerated rights.
Abortion should be a state issue, not a federal issue.”
Duh. That’s what I’ve been saying all along on this thread. And that’s why rudy is so bad - he would appoint judges who agree with his stance that there is a “right” to abortion somewhere in the constitution instead of orginalist judges who would return that power to the states.
“Hey, been real, got to go.”
Before you come back you might want to do a bit more research on rudy’s real record before you tell people who have done that research that they’re “wrong” in their claims (which they can back up with facts and quotes).
The Hyde Amendment, which bears the name of its GOP sponsor, provides for federally funded abortions in some circumstances. So in fact, there is a law to publicly fund at least some abortions.
What about these words from Rudy about abortion don't you understand:
"So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal." -- Rudolph Giuliani, 4/5/01, Yale Club.
That means he fully supports the right of a woman to abort.
And, most Democrats say they are personally opposed to abortion but believe it should be legal. Mondale campaign manager replied to one of my emails once stating the same thing. So what? Giuliani is as rabidly in favor of abortion and against restrictions as any politician in the nation.
Ummm, the government already funds certain abortions covered under Medicaid. So I guess that means Bush favors taxpayer funded abortions, too? The Hyde amendment was altered in 1993 to allow taxpayer funded abortions in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother for women covered under Medicaid. If you pay federal taxes, you are funding abortion now.
Every time. They are at least consistent.
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.