Presidents (any President) can’t modify Roe v. Wade, directly, but they CAN and do nomnate judges to the Supreme Court who will or will not maintain (I paraphrase a complicated process, I realize, but the point is, it’s the S.C. personalities and perspectives that will make any difference in this regard, that will have any huge change in the existing problem of abortion-on-demand). Presidents, I believe, can affect funding and influence society in this regard, so it’s no small thing what a President’s position respect for the unborn is, and with Giuliani, I believe it’s very clear by now that he’s of the mind that “every individual has the right to their opinion” and that he governs with those generalities in mind.

That is, he is LIBERAL in his efforts to allow for a “variety of perspectives” on complex issues, and seems to think (as I do, so far, so good) that abortion is not an option for onesself but that (and here I disagree with him) he as a leader or in influence has “no right” to influence anyone toward or to join in his opinion, and that, therefore, he suggests (strongly) that he’d maintain abortion-on-demand because someone, somewhere would want that and he doesn’t believe anyone’s in any position to assert their “opinion” in supercedence of anyone else’s.

That generalization, that LIBERAL position is fine and dandy when it’s limited to general social considerations (”you say tomato, I say tomahtoe”), but it’s irresponsible on issues affecting life and death (that means, all areas affecting both) and areas of ethics that then affect life and death.

Which is where the “opinion” by Catholic Bishop in this article enters into things: Holy Communion is an issue of life and death (I agree with him, as a Catholic) and he would refuse it to anyone identifying as a Catholic who disagrees with the Church on this issue of abortion (the Church regards abortion as an act of murder except in extreme cases of lifethreatening situations for a mother, and even then the life of the unborn is recognized and regarded with great love and care, as it should be).

So, in less serious issues, then, we can all, most of us as Christians, as Catholics, respect the “your opinion, my opinion, let’s all get along” perspective of Giuliani, but after a point, up to a point, that becomes a position that services wrongs, in fact, services evil (if you regard abortion as murder, if you regard murder as evil, you then regard anyone who participates in that by consent, willingly, or makes that possible, willingly, as evil, is my point — if the word, “evil” bothers you, then just substitute in “wrong” but either way, it’s a serious wrong to the point of being abhorrent).

I don’t want Hillary Clinton (or any Democrat) in the White House. I tend to blame many among the GOP for helping to make that possible — they have not organized or even identified many actual Conservatives and so we have these likely nominees that are causing many of us to twist and contort in our efforts to vote for them on principles alone). But the fact is, these are who we have from among who to nominate.

If Giuliani is the nominee, yes, I’ll vote for him as a Republican. But I’m VERY CONCERNED about his Liberal views on not only this issue (abortion on demand) but as to amnnesty, open borders, what appears to be his eagerness to redefine the very terms that identify these problems in an effort to enable the problems to continue and flourish, just like with abortion).

Giuliani says he’s strong on national security. O.K. So show me. Show everyone. Instead, he focuses on his work in that regard as it relates to New York. The United States is not New York and New York today isn’t too recognizable to many of us as being a part of the United States.

So, the Catholic Bishop has a very good point, here, as to an illustration of how individuals are to be evaluated. Our big problem politically as Conservatives is that there’s no huge money/media machine behind the likes of Duncan Hunter (a Conservative, would be a wonderful President), and Romney, a pro-life, talented executive who has a history of sound ethics and a stable personality, successful family and professional life, is offensive to some Christians.

So, too many Conservatives are applying near-sighted criteria in selecting/supporting Republican candidaes, with the exception of the Democrats who are pushing Ron Paul in their efforts to elect a Liberal as a Republican.

I’ll vote for Giuliani, I’ll vote for Romney, Tancredo, Hunter. That’s all. I would not be happy in a vote for Giuliani, but would perceive that as an act of service to the country if and as I had to do that. But, Giuliani needs to get straight with Conservatives. Otherwise, he’s proving he’s helping Hillary more than he’s helping the U.S.A.

S on October 4, 2007 at 4:57 PM

I’d rather honorable defeat than a victory that tells the GOP “Liberal republicans are the way to go!!!”

MadisonConservative

THAT as good a recap of what’s taking place today among many of us Conservatives as ever can be said. A LOT of us just do not want to see the Republican Party drift any more Liberal.

Social liberals have had a bad effect on the GOP for a while now but it’s just coming forward as to what extent. I doubt it’s paranoia that suggests me to conclude that it’s not by accident, either, that this has occured.

The problem a lot of us are also having is drawing any distinctions of importance as to issues between Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. One’s a Liberal, one’s a Marxist Liberal.

S on October 4, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Isn’t Romney pro-choice at the core, just flipping on the issue after entering the race? – awake on October 4, 2007 at 5:15 PM

I allow people to change their positions, especially on really, really serious issues such as this (abortion).

Based upon Romney’s many statements recently about his current position as to abortion (he’s now pro-life), and especially due to WHY he says he’s become pro-life, I believe him.

He is someone who has had a change in moral conviction after a very big issue (abortion) was more thoroughly considered by him (so now he’s pro-life after more closer examination of conscience).

I’ll admit this here…I USED to have a similar position on abortion, when I was younger, less mature, more concerned with social acceptance (that translates to being more eager to follow trends).

I USED to rationalize a pro-choice position as does now Giuliani (he hasn’t changed, unfortunately, with age and I think this indicates a lack of depth on his part) and also as Romney USED to have: that they as individuals would never agree to abortion, that they regarded it as wrong, evil, bad, rejectable, a wrong act, but that they “recognize” the — here’s the Liberal view — “right” of others to make their own choice (thus, pro-choice).

I USED to have that Liberal perspective (younger, less profound, not devoted too much time or consideration to the issue, was willing to “tolerate” nearly any and all out of efforts to get along, be sociable, all that, which is more a perspective of youth and inexperience than one of wisdom), and then I started with passing time to consider what my actual beliefs and values were under challenge and I admit here as I did then in my past that my “tolerance” represented a lack of conviction on my part AND an effort to not rock the boat. There’s a lot of social pressure when you’re young/er to be egalitarian, to be so adaptable to anything and everything and a lot of negative pressure when you’re young/er to not be too adament about much of anything, less you’re branded a “fanatic” or “too religious” and such (and so socially, Liberalism does control youth/younger ages via this method — mostly through academic environments, which you’re more likely to be involved in up to and through your early 20’s, and in my case, into my 30’s).

Once I was moreorless out of the influence of Liberalism (not entirely, just moreso), I started evaluating many of these serious issues independently, in my own time, heart and prayers.

So, I could no longer say that just because I’d never have an abortion, that I’d look the other way or be willing to sanction or even make possible someone else involved in abortion (which is what the position of Giuliani is, like other Liberal Republicans like him).

And I believe that was Romney’s position, too. However, his explanations about his change in position about this seem very similar to what I experienced as I grew and examined my own beliefs more closely.

So, I accept his explanations and his position as being a pro-life person also involved in politics representing a pro-life political process. And why he changed his position, as also I did years ago.

I don’t perceive his changed position in this regard to be whimsical or “flipflopping” because to anyone of faith the issue is just too profound. No one of any seriousness would ever be able to explain as Romney has in the details as he’s explained his experience in this regard, if not sincere.

Thus, I accept Romney as a pro-life candidate. I know unquestionably that I am pro-life and I empathize with anyone who shares this same experience as to this issue, especially.

S on October 4, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Vyce, things (and people and civilizations and nations) change. They don’t always become “more Liberal” over time, sometimes they become more Conservative. Look at France for example of that, look at Russia…look at China, etc., our own nation…all nations go through cycles of influence and advocacy about issues, and I THINK that the U.S. is going through a change toward the more Conservative, not the more Liberal.

The PROBLEM IS, at this time in our calendar, how that’s going to be reflected in the political. I tend to think all the backlash against exising Republican candidates is one not by Liberals but by Conservatives.

The Democratic Party is nearly meaningless in my view as any bellweather indication of where the country is “going” so much as where a certain personality type is running to…they’re eager to find cover, seek some escape or otherwise blame someone else (or something) for their unhappiness, and the big difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Liberals really do need revenge, they need to inflict social harms and penalties on those they disagree with IDEOLOGICALLY (and thus, the obvious, nonsensical lies like those about Rush Limbaugh, the statements not based on reality but reflective of someone’s inner psychology, the need to display like a temper tantrum).

They MAY win the Presidency but I really don’t think they will in ‘08. UNLESS there’s a deceitful voting process…

I say that because Conservatives are devoting a great deal of time now to airing out the doubts, confusions, disagreements and once that’s done, we’ll vote and it won’t be for Democrats. The RNC just may be our problem, too, that most of us aren’t discussing…because the Party seems to be issuing confusion, moreso than us voters are.

S on October 4, 2007 at 7:01 PM