Is It Just Me Or Is Rudy Giuliani Absolutely Incoherent When It Comes To Abortion?

• May 4, 2007

Because this is one of the most ridiculous instances of political posturing/straddling I’ve ever seen.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Would it be a good day for America if Roe v. Wade were repealed? “Yes,” Absolutely,” “Most certainly” — these are the type of emphatic answers given by 9 out of 10 of the GOP presidential candidates.
But when it came time for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to answer, he said, “It would be okay to repeal,” then adding, “It would be okay also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as a precedent.”
This is a decision for the Supreme Court to decide, he explained, and “Then the country can deal with it. We’re a federalist system of government and states can make their own decisions.”

Now I’m not the sort of person who buys into the argument that abortion is a state’s right. I see life as beginning at conception, so to me the unborn child is protected by the 5th amendment which requires due process before anyone is deprived of their life. Meaning that no state can pass a law making abortion legally if we’re going by what the founders actually wrote in the Constitution.
But if you’re someone like Giuliani who doesn’t believe that life begins at conception and also claim to be a “federalist” when it comes to the Constitution then the state’s rights option is your obvious choice. After all, no article or section of, nor any amendment to, the Constitution was meant to protect abortion as a right. Thus, per the 10th amendment, it is an issue to be left to the states. But Giuliani is saying that he’s a federalist, but that he could see how Roe should stand.
That’s utter nonsense.
Giuliani would be better served if he just took one side or the other with this abortion thing. Trying to please both sides just makes him silly. And, frankly, he’s not going to win over many of the pro-choice crowd anyway. He may as well just embrace his pro-choice stance and hope that socially conservative voters are able to look past it to his other more palatable policies.

Tags: Abortion, Domestic Issues, Politics

http://www.willisms.com/ Zsa Zsa

It is too bad he feels the way he does about this issue. I think he would have made a great President. I personally don’t feel good about him anymore because of his stance. He seemed unable to commit either way. He may be able to live with it either way, BUT the aborted babies don’t have that benefit. I would challenge anyone who is for abortion to take a closer look…
docdave

Well you’re right, but it seems to me that the life of the child is intertwined with the life of the mother. At that point there is a balance of interests between the mother and child.

It seems to me that it is the duty of the legislative process to settle the balance between those two lives.

With due respect, whistler, I have to disagree with some of your points. I’m not sure of your meaning of ‘interwined’ but the to-be mothers life is not dependant on the unborn child whereas the unborns life is totally dependant on the mother. Substantial difference, so there is no real balance between mother and child.

As regards to abortion, the lsgislatures (and I admit that is better the a judges rulings) can legalize it but that doesn’t make it morally right.
Neiman

Zsa Zsa: You are right that to vacillate on this issue indicates he does not possess a solid core value about abortion and he could not be trusted for that reason alone as POTUS. He is trying a Clintonian triangulation of abortion and neither side should trust him.

DocDave: You too are correct, not only about the differences between the mother and fetus as to which is more dependent upon the other; but that even if 99.9% of the people of America said abortion was good and moral, that fact would never make it right.

Many want to make an exception for rape, incest or life of the mother. Rape or incest is easy, the innocent child in the womb should not be subjected to the death penalty for the acts of the rapist or the incestuous male. If the mother chooses to release the child for adoption that is an acceptable choice for me, killing the child is not. Then we get to the life of the mother, if in some incredibly rare situation the physical life of the mother is at imminent risk if she keeps the child to term or wherein cesarean delivery is possible, then I believe society must leave that decision to the mother, her family, priest (if a believer) and her doctor. However, if there is not such a narrow definition of imminent risk of actual physical death of the mother involved, whether or not the woman kills herself later for emotional causes is not justification for the murder of her child.
http://SayAnythingBlog.com The_Whistler_ofnd

I see life as beginning at conception, so to me the unborn child is protected by the 5th amendment which requires due process before anyone is deprived of their life.

Well you’re right, but it seems to me that the life of the child is intertwined with the life of the mother.

At that point there is a balance of interests between the mother and child.

It seems to me that it is the duty of the legislative process to settle the balance between those two lives. That’s a tough decision but it is their job.

Since we are a federalist system the duty belongs to the state. So while I may not like what they do in New York it’s none of my business.

Thats how I see it then.

But Guiliani’s an idiot for thinking that his position makes any sense at all.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Is It Just Me Or Is Rudy Giuliani Absolutely Incoherent When It Comes To Abortion?

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments