Say Anything Blog

Geez. And pro lifers get all over Guliani for being a fanatical liberal because of his stance on abortion. How is this any better?

You’re probably right, but that interview is 5 years old so we can’t rule out that his stance has legitamately changed since then. I’m sure you’ve changed stances on some issues in the last 5 years.

What can you expect from the man who signed into law a permanent ban on semi-automatic sporting rifles in his state, only to turn around, join the NRA, and claim to be a solid 2A candidate, when it suits his political goals to do so?

Yeah, you guys are totally right…

If you ever change your mind, you’re a complete liar.

Who do you believe will overturn Roe...? someone who says he has changed or someone WHO STILL THINKS ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL (RUDY!)!?!?!

- Ultimate decision by woman, her conscience & her doctor. (Aug 2007)
- Allowing choice keeps government out of people’s lives. (May 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
Last I checked, August was a few months ago. Yeah, I can’t imagine why those freaky pro life people wouldn’t like Giuliani.

So when someone changes their mind, do you look at what they DID, or what they promise? Clinton and Gore had EXCELLENT pro-life voting records!

Bill Clinton, in a letter to Arkansas Right to Life, September 26, 1986
“I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong.”

http://www.gargaro.com/lifequotes.html

When they ran, they said they were pro-aborts. Hey… anybody know how those guys turned out? Oh, right, they legalized partial birth abortion.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

Yeah, you’re right will, I’d much rather have a candidate who’s lying and switching to gain conservative votes than have someone who’s actually up front and honest about an important issue.

It’s not like a president has the power to singlehandedly overturn roe anyway. And if Guliani is being honest about a huge conservative issue like abortion, what makes you think he’s not being honest about appointing strict constructionist judges who won’t want to overturn roe?

Yep, Mitt Romney is a flip flop. The photo at this site proves it!

Check out

romneyforpresident.townhall.com/

Like Mormonism, the blog isn’t what it seems.

(Funny photos too.)

Candidate 1: I want to overturn Roe and be as pro-life as possible.

Candidate 2: I don’t give a shit if Roe is overturned.

Candidate 2 is obviously more pro life.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

I’d much rather have a candidate who’s lying and switching to gain conservative votes than have someone who’s actually up front and honest about an important issue.

translation: I’d much rather somebody say their going to keep killing children instead of someone who says they’ll stop killing children.

I definitely see your logic there buddy.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

K. So you’d still rather have someone who’s lying just to tell you what you want to hear, than have someone who’s honest about being pro-family and wanting to decrease abortions, but doesn’t want to overturn Roe. Even if someone did overturn Roe, it still wouldn’t make abortions universally illegal, it would then be up to the states.

I can’t argue with you since you obviously won’t get behind someone unless they unequivocally tell you they’ll make abortions illegal, even if their previous record suggests otherwise. That’s flawless logic.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27508_Murdock-_Its_Wrong_for_the_Right_to_Be_Rudyphobic&only

what makes you think he’s not being honest about appointing
strict constructionist judges who won’t want to overturn roe?

Oh, so you’re naive enough to think that any given costructionist judge will vote to overturn Roe?

Truth be told, you don’t really care about an unborn who has to go through an abortion. You’re a 1/2 baked conservative, my friend.

Maybe because I actually listen to what he says and does.

Allowing choice keeps government out of people’s lives. (May 2007)

are you reading?  THE GUY STILL DOESN’T WANT TO OVERTURN PARTIAL BIRTH!!!!

When a child’s head comes out at delivery, the abortionist sticks a siringe into the skull and sucks the brains out. Are you listening buddy? RUDY WOULD VOTE TO REPEAL THAT LAW.

“No, I have not supported [a ban on partial birth abortions] and I don’t see my position on that changing,”

still reading?

“I would vote to preserve the option [for partial birth abortion] for women,” NBC, Meet the Press, February 6, 2000.

Strict

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

I can’t argue with you since you obviously won’t get behind someone unless they unequivocally tell you they’ll make abortions illegal, even if their previous record suggests otherwise. That’s flawless logic.

So you’re saying a guy can never change? What about Ronald Reagen and Bush Senior. RONALD REAGAN WAS A FLIP FLOPPER. How come we don’t have flip flops for him?

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

I’m not saying a guy can never change. But it’s not the only issue he’s flip flopped on. I think neither Romney nor Guliani believe they are far enough to the right to get a commanding lead for the nomination (even though Rudy leads in most polls), but I admire Guliani for sticking to his guns about issues that a lot of conservatives clearly wouldn’t agree with.

I also think people go to extremes in terms of Guliani’s position on abortion. Yes, he doesn’t want to make them universally illegal. But that doesn’t mean he’s the biggest pro-abortionist the world has ever seen, and people think he’s going to start violating the hyde amendment and lying about the type of judges he would appoint, and that’s simply untrue. If he’s going to lie about that stuff, why wouldn’t he just lie and say he’s a pro-lifer? It doesn’t add up.

I’m not saying you should get behind someone who goes against what you believe in. But let’s not go crazy either. Rudy is more moderate than a lot of conservatives might want on some issues, but let’s face it, he’s not going to start appointing activist judges and requesting federal abortion funding.

You’re a 1/2 baked conservative, my friend.

So this one issue nullifies every other conservative belief I have?

I admire Guliani for sticking to his guns

That’s precisely where we differ. I don’t admire someone who is pro-legal-abortion.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

I don’t admire someone who is pro-legal-abortion.

I kind of figured that :p

But the point I’m trying to make is, there’s a difference between someone who is pro-family but doesn’t want abortions to be illegal, and being a fanatical pro-abortionist as many are falsely making Rudy out to be.

I kind of figured that :p

That implies you are OK that he is pro-legal-abortion.

and being a fanatical pro-abortionist as many are falsely making Rudy out to be.

fanatical killer vs. a non fanatical killer? HUH?

#^$@#$!@#&^@$#$

Vote for Rudy because he only wants to kill babies if they aren’t wanted!

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

Ok, so there’s absolutely no middle ground? Either you support abolishing all abortions in all forms in any cirumstance, or you’re a bloodthirsty baby killer? Is that correct?

Once we establish and admit the truth about abortion, which is that it’s killing a human being, and is done almost exclusively for birth control purposes, then we might be able to negotiate in good faith for a real solution.  Under what conditions is it right to kill a defenseless human being?  Who gets to decide?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Ok, so there’s absolutely no middle ground?

Correct. Last I checked, there’s no middle ground when it comes to murder, is there?

It’s pretty obvious do not know when life begins.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

Once we establish and admit the truth about abortion, which is that it’s killing a human being, and is done almost exclusively for birth control purposes, then we might be able to negotiate in good faith for a real solution.  Under what conditions is it right to kill a defenseless human being?  Who gets to decide?

So, that’s the truth, then? The irredeemable scientific truth is that a fruit sized lump of cells with no cognitive thought and is biologically more primitive than a fish is more important than the woman who is actually a human being? It has the potential to be a human, yes. But if that’s murder, then when does it end?

It’s pretty obvious do not know when life begins.

Is birth control murder too? Is condom use sinful? Are women and families better off breeding uncontrollably like farm aminals?

No. The truth is, it’s not fact. It’s your opinion. I don’t like abortions either. I would rather see adoptions than abortions. But the choice should be the woman’s or the family’s, not the state’s. Fine, describe to me the gory details of a partial birth abortion, but don’t mention the fact that they are the vast minority of abortions, and are usually done due the fetus being malformed or the mother’s health being in jeopardy.

I’m not telling you your opinion is unequivocally the wrong one. But to tell me I’m wrong and that it’s an utter absolute fact that the potential for human life is the equivalent of human life when in reality that is based on your own personal moral or religious beliefs, makes you sound extreme.

Is birth control murder too? Is condom use sinful? Are women and families better off breeding uncontrollably like farm aminals?

Bags: With all due respect, this is very old territory.  At the moment of conception, a complete and unique human DNA sequence is created, which follows that individual for the rest of his or her life.  If your DNA is found at a crime scene, it establishes that you were there.  All the blather about “fetus” is simply untrue.  It’s a “human fetus”, and it’s human.  It’s also true that about 95% of abortions are done for birth control purposes.  If you favor human feticide for birth control purposes, just say so, but don’t pretend that: It’s not human, because it is, and that the mother and her child have divergent interests.  The responsibility for conception rests entirely with the mother, except in the rare instance of rape, and even then, it is strange to punish the human fetus with the death penalty for something it didn’t do.
Also, attributing the so-called “partial birth” abortions to medical reasons of any kind is simply untrue.  A malformed human fetus, incapable of life, is generally rejected naturally by the mother’s body, with no medical intervention being required.  They are simply more abortions for birth control purposes.
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, any birth control method that prevents conception is not killing a human being.
The “mother’s health” excuse is also pure crap.  That’s just a CYA for the abortionist.
How do you feel about the huge profits being made by the abortion provider corps?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Is birth control murder too? Is condom use sinful?

Preconception is not murder.

I don’t like abortions either.

Why don’t you like abortion? You don’t think it’s murder.

are usually done due the fetus being malformed

translation: killing unborn children is ok if they are crippled

or the mother’s health being in jeopardy.

When a mother’s life is in jeopardy from a pregnancy, (very rare), the solution should not be “how do we kill this unborn child”. The solution is, how can we save the mother’s life? And if that means early delivery of the baby, fine. Why does it need to mean, “go in with a scalpels and cut it to pieces?”

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

Thanks for pointing that out. I know it’s old territory, sorry for boring you guys. I guess my argument was kind of silly, huh. Now, let’s stop arguing about something that clearly shouldn’t be an issue because it’s already written into law so we know everyone universally accepts what you’re saying as irrefutable fact, and go convict all of these women who have abortions and give them the death penalty for murder! Yay pro-life! This is fun.

Why don’t you like abortion? You don’t think it’s murder.

You’re right! Because I don’t agree with you that the government should outlaw a woman from choosing what to do, I love abortions! I wake up every day hoping that every pregnant woman wants to have an abortion, so that me and my godless, murderous ilk can gleefully perform as many as possible.

Because I don’t agree with you that the government should outlaw a woman from choosing what to do…

The govt “outlaws” women from doing lots of things, like commit murder, armed robbery, burglary, DUI, etc.
Those are not legitimate “choices” for women, and including feticide against her own baby isn’t outside that realm.  In fact, Roe actually sanctions irresponsible behavior, like having sex when you don’t want children.  If you have sex, there is the possibility of creating a human life, and that is the woman’s responsibility, except in cases of rape, as I have said before.  If a “woman’s right to choose” is so important to you, why is the baby’s right to live so unimportant to you?  Are you really so subversive that you would attempt to drive a wedge between mothers and their children?  How far are you willing to go to acquire political power?

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Here’s a site I’d recommend for you:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .

...go convict all of these women who
have abortions and give them the death penalty for murder!

Once again, you go loony on what might have been a reasoned debate.  No matter.  It is wrong for SCOTUS to amend the Constitution without going through the amendment process spelled out in the Constitution.  Roe should be overturned on that basis alone, and the abortion matter should be returned to local control, like it should have been all along.  Let the people vote in each community whether or not they want a giant abortion corporation to set up shop in their neighborhood.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

How far are you willing to go to acquire political power?

Are you serious? As I’ve tried to point out through this entire discussion, I’m not some fanatic who favors abortion over all other things. I don’t think women should be acting irresponsibly, constantly having unprotected sex resulting in multiple abortions. Because I don’t view abortion as murder, doesn’t mean destroying the potential for human life isn’t a difficult and heart-breaking moral decision.

Once again, you go loony on what might have been a reasoned debate

That’s my knee-jerk reaction when someone asks me “if it’s not murder, why don’t you like abortion?” That’s not only insulting, but it’s completely absurd.

Let the people vote in each community whether or not they want a giant abortion corporation to set up shop in their neighborhood.

Fine. Let the people decide. However saying that is far less insulting than calling people who feel it’s the right of a woman or a family to choose when they want to have a child a murderer. As my good friend george here continues to point out, either I must think abortion should be universally abolished, or I’m a cold-blooded killer.

Because I don’t view abortion as murder, I don’t either; murder is illegal killing, so I have consistently referred to it as “killing”. doesn’t mean destroying the potential for human life It’s not “potential”; it is life. If that human fetus wasn’t alive, it wouldn’t be necessary to kill it. isn’t a difficult and heart-breaking moral decision. Taking an innocent life out of a desire to avoid responsibility and inconvenience should be a difficult and heart-breaking decision, moral and otherwise.

I’m not discussing this with george, I’m discussing it with you. You replied to my first comment calling it killing with the usual feminist chatter about the human fetus not being human, which is just wrong.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

Bags: In regard to my comment about acquiring political power, the abortion issue has been used by the Dems for decades to hold on to the female vote, with the lie that they are for “a woman’s choice”.  You can’t be ignorant of the fact that you are supporting that cause.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

In regard to my comment about acquiring political power, the abortion issue has been used by the Dems for decades to hold on to the female vote, with the lie that they are for “a woman’s choice”.  You can’t be ignorant of the fact that you are supporting that cause.

Yeah I don’t like that fact any more than you. I’m not saying these things because I want democrats to be in office. Hillary is an evil person. I just resent being called a murderer for my views on this issue. No matter how immoral and terrible of a human being you may think I am, nothing you say will convince me that having an abortion is the equivalent of me turning around and killing my co-worker.

I just resent being called a murderer for my views on this issue. Once again, I never called you a murderer, so can you drop that with me? No matter how immoral and terrible of a human being you may think I am, You are just making that up; I said nothing of the kind. nothing you say will convince me that having an abortion is the equivalent of me turning around and killing my co-worker. I guess you think some humans are more equal than others, then.  Of course, killing your co-worker would be your “choice”.

"If the good men are silent only the wicked are heard.” - Edmund Burke

I just resent being called a murderer for my views on this issue.

Nobody called you a murderer. You simply don’t understand the abortion issue. I’ve studied it extensively and I counsel women who are going through it. I’m not just all talk.

nothing you say will convince me ...

That’s pretty closed minded. It’s not about what I can say, you have to really see, feel and touch abortion it. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomboriginal/

...that having an abortion is the equivalent of me turning around and killing my co-worker.

Honestly, I view them equal. Both feel pain. Can YOU imagine yourself being burned alive with salt or cut limb by limb.

10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .