Can the G.O.P. Accept Giuliani’s Abortion Stance?

New York Times ^ | May 11, 2007 | By ROBIN TONER

[Sweet Hour of Prayer]

The only way I’d vote for him is if he wins the GOP nomination and is running against Hill/Edwards/Obama/Richardson. Then, I’ll hold my nose and vote for the liberal republican.

Perhaps, Guiliani should try to recruit Fred or Duncan as a running mate. To offset his liberal morals.

[tet68]

Abortion, it’s just murder.

[Jim Noble]

I can understand a pragmatic position that outlawing abortion (by passing state laws) is unwise. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

I do not understand, and I can never accept, a view that there is a "right" to abortion which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

[Ingtar]

Not this Republican sir!

[icwhatudo]

[f150sound]

Ummmm. NOPE

The constant dithering since Reagan means that our top contender (Rudy, McLame, Romney) candidates are ALL pro aborts of one degree or another.

If the Republican Party CAN "accept" any of these pro aborts as the nominee, it won't be doing it with my vote.

[Bullish]

The GOP cannot survive a Giuliani.

If the GOP nominates Giuliani, then it is already dead.

Time to cover it up with dirt.

[50mm]

You make the call:

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

Not a snow balls chance in hell.

[AlaskaErik]

I can’t accept his Second Amendment stance. Therefore Giuliani will never get my vote. Not even in the general election.

[jedward]

“If Mr. Giuliani endures, in short, he will be bucking an awful lot of history.”

And we know he won’t. It needs to be painful enough that another Liberal that wants to try the same stunt in the future, will quickly erase that thought and bring themselves back to failed attempt!

[JamesP81]

I do not understand, and I can never accept, a view that there is a "right" to abortion which is guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

That's because the Constitution guarantees no such thing. Of course, the Constitution itself is unable to grant rights; we have those given to us by our Creator; the Constitution merely lists some of them so that the government can't infringe upon them.

Government is instituted among men, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed so that the government can prevent the infringement of liberties and rights. One of these is the right to live, and therefore the govt is bound to protect the right to live of unborn children. So not only does our Constitution not grant any such right to abortion, our govt should be stopping it. At the federal level no less.

[jedward]

to failed = to this failed attempt

[Lexinom]

No.

Many accuse many others of being "single issue" voters.

Quantitatively, abortion is what is known in statistics as an "outlier". The act itself is so repulsive, so extreme, so harmful to mother and (of course) child, and so destructive to our collective respect for all human life that its weighting among the various issues skews the results of the political scale. Those who clamor for the WOT as the single issue need to realize that the ideals laid out in our seminal Declaration of Independence - right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - are precisely the ideals that make America worth fighting for in the first place. To vacillate on the objects of those rights is to undermine original intent and bring in precisely those less noble tendencies toward legalism that have, in recent years, shown themselves as a blight on the American identity in the form of frivolous lawsuits and twisting of the meaning of the law for personal gain. America's reputation for lawsuits has gained dubious international recognition.

Are those self-serving traits of the sort we wish to see further amplified? Are we as a people strong enough to keep a republic whose Constitution "was made only for a moral and religious people...wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (John Adams)?

[Tabi Katz]

I don’t know but if he wins it will be without my vote.

And mine. And someone should tell Robin Toner and her employers at the N.Y. Slimes that Rudy is also anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, and, if his personal behavior is any indication, pro-adultery. If the legal violent deaths of over 44 million babies since 1973 (not to mention the undemocratic, unconstitutional judicial arrogance reflected in Roe v. Wade) is not enough to deter social conservatives, they might consider some of these other issues.

[rljv]

I could write a book, like most here, about my anti-abortion position, but Rudy would be better than H any day.
This seems to be about Rudy’s politics. His stupidity is a disappointment and it’s a deal-breaker.

[Tabi Katz]

If the GOP nominates Giuliani, then it is already dead.

Yep.

[Bullish]

I hope you don’t really mean that seriously.

Because that graph is garbage.

[do the dhue]

HEAR HEAR

and go Hunter!

[BigFinn]

Double nope.