Anyone who doesn’t struggle with this issue IMO is not really thinking it through.

honora on May 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM

No, anyone who struggles with the issue doesn’t have a firm grasp on logic and reason.

Abortion cannot be considered a “I’m personally against it but…” problem. It is either murder or it isn’t, and it is from conception or it is not at all. Because we have admitted as a society that we do not know when human life begins (see Roe v Wade), we must err on the side of life. We know life doesn’t exist before conception, and we know that babies can live on their own prior to the 9 month mark. So because of the uncertainty of where it begins prior to birth, we must assume for safety sake that it begins at conception.

Now you can either agree that humans deserve human rights at birth or instead at conception. But this is a cut and dried easy decision to make. Struggling with this issue is like struggling with whether or not genocide is OK. It’s either good for the gene pool to kill the “weaker races”, or it’s evil to murder other humans.

Just make up your mind.

Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 12:51 PM

Great points. It seems to me that the pro-abortion nuts prefer defeat to running a pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, strong against terrorism, pro-military candidate.

Despite Romney’s checkered past, most people I see here seem to give him a break. Same with Fred!. How about Sam Brownback or Duncan Hunter (who is, by the way, great on immigration)?

It’s the Giuliani crowd that’s willing to trash the Republican party, not the other way around.

I’ll ask it once again, though: Rudy has a history of running from Hilary Clinton. Why should we let him run against her? She’ll beat him in his home state. Rudy has no history with the military or diplomacy, but I’m to assume he’ll be great on terrorism? He doesn’t seem to have a clue what a constitutionalist judge is, but he’s going to appoint only strict ones?

So, I know Giuliani is horrible on nearly every social issue. But I should vote for him because I assume he might beat someone who he has run from (not against), he might be good in the war on terror and he might appoint a judge like Scalia. If that’s the Republican platform in ‘08 we’ll definitely have a Democrat President.

Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion – except when the life of the mother is at stake. He’s proud that adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City when he was Mayor. But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully. Ultimately he believes that it is a decision between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God.

From my reading of Rudy’s position (reasonable restrictions, bans with exceptions) and the poll you provided, that puts Rudy some where between “usually legal” and “usually illegal.” That puts him way in the mainstream. Even if you characterize his position as “usually legal, he is still within a solid majority if you also count those with even more liberal views. Only an extreme fringe of 13% of those polled want abortion illegal in all cases. When the question was phrased different “between woman and doctor” polled at 55%. Once again Rudy is the mainstream and those with draconian views on abortion are a small, albeit loud, minority.

Also note that 69% said they could vote for a President with a different view on abortion.

Sorry about the snide remarks, but the drumbeat on this site on this issue really irritates me. There are so many more important issues that really effect the prosperity and security of this nation. To have this issue that CANNOT BE RESOLVED highjack the debate is a crime. It makes otherwise decent Republican candidates into liars. Mitt is lying. Fred! is lying. They are both Pro-Choice. They have been debating this issue since the 70’s. Do you think they just started thinking about this issue. Mitt and Fred!’s flip flops on this issue are not sincere. They are just saying what they think people like you want to hear so that they can trick you into giving them your vote so that can turn around and appoint someone like Kennedy or O’Connor to the Sup.Ct.

I think you will be much better off with Rudy, who from an honestly held judicial philosophy will appoint strict constructionists to the Sup.Ct. That is what you really want from a President.

Hillary beats fred? in Texas, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky….

Ouch.

csdeven on May 10, 2007 at 8:57 AM

Did he announce yet? No. Then it doesn’t matter… :)

Hey Esthier. Bold above, I don’t think this statement is true. It’s like guns–a highly vocal minority on both sides sucks up all the oxygen, when in fact most people see it as an issue of some importance but not a make or break issue. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen documentation of this.

honora on May 10, 2007 at 11:42 AM

According to the site I gave, it was “very important” to half the people who asked and “somewhat important” to another quarter who were asked. Now, that was in 2000. Maybe things have changed.

Not something to joke about, do you think? I am reluctantly pro-choice but support the sensible restrictions–age, notification, no 3rd term, education/education/education/education.

Anyone who doesn’t struggle with this issue IMO is not really thinking it through.

honora on May 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM

I agree. Very poor taste on that one.

But to be fair, Rudy isn’t supporting further restrictions. Notification and age restrictions are not an issue.

What I don’t get is exactly what ‘pro-choice’ means in this context. When Rudy is ‘pro-choice’ Are we talking about 1st term abortion or 3rd term abortion (where a term is 3 months)? There’s a world of difference between the two, can anyone please clarify?

Aylios on May 10, 2007 at 9:07 AM

Dead is dead.

Abortion isn’t my hot-button issue, but Rudy is making Waffles look good.

However, as an American he understands that others see this issue differently (and accordng to Esthier’s poll, support for making all abortions illegal is only in the teens). And Rudy does not want to impose his article of faith on other who may legitimately hold a contrary position.

And if you religious nut jobs want to throw me out of the “tent” just because I will not submit to your article of faith, then maybe you guys really should move to another part of the world where they live in tents and force their women folk to live by their archaic religious beliefs ;-)

tommylotto on May 10, 2007 at 12:32 PM

First off, the poll clearly shows that those who want abortion legal in all circumstances are the ones in the minority, around 30%. That’s where Rudy stands.

If your math can somehow turn 30% into a majority, go at it.

Second, YOU’RE the one trying to kick people out of the party. YOU’RE the one throwing out insults like they’ll be going out of style next week. And YOU’RE the one whining.

You like Rudy? Good for you. So what?

No one is stopping from you liking him, even if you prefer the way he looks in that dress.

YOU’RE the one diriding people for their beliefs. So please, if it is all possible, considering you high horse is just that high up, please, come back down to where the rest of us are instead of looking down on us “nut jobs.”

We, unlike you, can accept people in here even if we disagree with them. We just don’t see any reason to elect them as our leaders. I assume you feel the same way.

If you can find it in your heart to come to terms that other people can have different opinions, then you can be welcomed back down to earth.

How to interpret this: many people object to abortion or at least have grave reservations (myself included) but don’t want this to be in the hands of the government.

honora on May 10, 2007 at 11:48 AM

That’s one way to interpret it. The other is to see how many people wish there were more restrictions on abortion. A majority of those polled do not want abortion legal in all circumstances.

And since that’s where it is right now, one way to view that poll is to say that many people want the law on abortion to change in favor of making an abortion harder to get.

Bottom line, that does not put Gulliani in line with moderates. It only puts him in line with a little over a third of the population.

And if you religious nut jobs want to throw me out of the “tent” just because I will not submit to your article of faith, then maybe you guys really should move to another part of the world where they live in tents and force their women folk to live by their archaic religious beliefs ;-)

You were doing so well up until that last paragraph. Sound thinking, logical progression — incorrect conclusion (but that’s what debate is all about) — and then you have to poot in the pool.

No one wants to silence dissent. But one doesn’t win influence and friendship by calling someone else a nut job.

Good try. Content, B+; Style, solid B until last paragraph; had to return the paper for reconsideration. Result, D-

Hey Esthier. Bold above, I don’t think this statement is true. It’s like guns–a highly vocal minority on both sides sucks up all the oxygen, when in fact most people see it as an issue of some importance but not a make or break issue. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen documentation of this.

honora on May 10, 2007 at 11:42 AM

I’d be happy to see it, because the documentation I’ve seen has shown that because of abortion, those who support it being legal and those who do not, the numbers at the polls have increased.

I’ve also read stories that claim abortion as the number one reason (maybe not a strong number one but still number one) for poll attendance was because of abortion.

There is still a Supreme Court seat up for grabs, and Roe has been on shakey ground for some time. It’s logical in my opinion since so few things change with each passing president.

It is a matter of faith as to when that spark of life is put into a fetus. It might be conception, it might be when the kid finally understands integral calculus. I’m not going to change your article of faith on this issue, you are not going to change my faith. In a matter of faith like this, it is down right un-American for any of us to impose our faith on others.

Would Rudy have an abortion if he were a woman (as opposed to just dressing like one)? No, that is his personal choice and his personal faith.

However, as an American he understands that others see this issue differently (and accordng to Esthier’s poll, support for making all abortions illegal is only in the teens). And Rudy does not want to impose his article of faith on other who may legitimately hold a contrary position.

Concerning RvW, Rudy is a lawyer. He believes in strict constructionst judges like Roberts and the Italians. He understands that it was wrongly decided and could be overturned. However, as a lawyer he understands the power of precedent. So, he can understand how any good conservative jurist could decide either to overturn RvW or decide that we are to far gone and the precedential value is too strong to overturn. I frankly believe it is never too late to correct a bad decision, and I think Rudy agrees, because he has actually said he believes it should be up to the states to decided.

I just happen to agree with him through out on this “wedge” issue of very little real relevance. If he is nuanced or dancin’ then I am dancin’ to the same tune.

And if you religious nut jobs want to throw me out of the “tent” just because I will not submit to your article of faith, then maybe you guys really should move to another part of the world where they live in tents and force their women folk to live by their archaic religious beliefs ;-)

Just for your own personal edification, maybe you should read a little more. Pro-choice is not in any way shape or form the moderate opinion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

But what do I know, I’m just a dumb conservative who reads a little before taking to my keyboard with baseless insults.

Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 11:22 AM

The most interesting part of the link was comparing the various questions and % responses to variations of the question are you pro life or pro choice–that question elicits a 50/50 split if you look at the questions (not including the late term one, which is a specific procedure almost everyone objects to); what is interesting is the response to the question about do you want to see Roe overturned. Overwhelmingly, people do not.

How to interpret this: many people object to abortion or at least have grave reservations (myself included) but don’t want this to be in the hands of the government.

Torturing?

No one is torturing him by asking this question. It’s elementary to assume that ANY Republican candidate who has a firm opinion, opposing most of his base one of the basic reasons people go to the polls (and yes abortion does that, on both sides) will get this question.

And let’s face it, until now, the man’s been trying to make a dance out of it. I admire him more for now being open about it, but it hasn’t changed my opinion of him.

If he’s our pick, I’ll stand by him because of his stance on terrorism. But I’ll do what I can to make sure he isn’t our pick.

Esthier on May 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Hey Esthier. Bold above, I don’t think this statement is true. It’s like guns–a highly vocal minority on both sides sucks up all the oxygen, when in fact most people see it as an issue of some importance but not a make or break issue. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen documentation of this.

Oh, hi Honora. You’re not one of those women who have killed a likely “pro-choice” voter before she was born, are you? I mean, if you haven’t, I have a more favorable opinion of you, but if you have, well–thanks!

Kralizec on May 10, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Not something to joke about, do you think? I am reluctantly pro-choice but support the sensible restrictions–age, notification, no 3rd term, education/education/education/education.

Anyone who doesn’t struggle with this issue IMO is not really thinking it through.

The Weekly Standard didi a great interview with Fred Thompson. It clearly explains his position and his consistent voting record. If he gets in…he’s got my vote!

Excellent. This is exactly what I called for Rudy to do just a little while ago. By doing so, he will be winning a larger portion of the moderate voting bloc, the largest in the country. If conservatives are dumb enough to turn their back against him, then they can pat themselves on the back when Hillary comes to town.

Seixon on May 10, 2007 at 8:09 AM

Just for your own personal edification, maybe you should read a little more. Pro-choice is not in any way shape or form the moderate opinion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

But what do I know, I’m just a dumb conservative who reads a little before taking to my keyboard with baseless insults.

No one is torturing him by asking this question. It’s elementary to assume that ANY Republican candidate who has a firm opinion, opposing most of his base one of the basic reasons people go to the polls (and yes abortion does that, on both sides) will get this question.

And let’s face it, until now, the man’s been trying to make a dance out of it. I admire him more for now being open about it, but it hasn’t changed my opinion of him.

If he’s our pick, I’ll stand by him because of his stance on terrorism. But I’ll do what I can to make sure he isn’t our pick.

Perhaps an education in logic would be more to the point. The social conservatives will make or break the winner of the primary in the general. If we stay home, the left wins; if we vote in numbers, the right party wins.

It’s not too hard to remember that this is a complex world. One cannot win everything with one issue. There are several issues on the table, and we are looking for the candidate with the right fit for our political and moral values. I can tell you that personally, I would weigh heavily in favor of a Republican who embraces not only clear national defense, noninfringment of the Second Amendment, but also the clear defense of the unborn. Is that too much to ask? I hope not.