Giuliani Voices Continued Support for Public Funding of Abortion

[Shattered]

Who are you say I have poor upbringing and morals? Just because you don't agree me, how disgusting but it says soooooooo much about you and your character.

Just the mere fact that you have no respect for others and are extremely arrogant, ignorant, close-minded and judgmental shows me kind of person you really are. It's people like you that have caused more problems than good.

It's a joke that you think you're anywhere close to be selfless, you're the epitome of selfishness.

Also your unwillingness to actually debate points shows your lack of intelligence and maturity...instead your resort to character attacks...that's what people do when they have no rebuttal. Before you say it, I didn't attack your character, I stated facts that YOU have provided.

I've never had an abortion, I've never asked for handouts from the Government, I've never been unemployed, I've worked for everything I have, I believe people should be held to a higher standard than that of animals, I practice what I preach, and I'm willing to bust my ass to get what I want in life without expecting anything to be given to me, and I've never expected anyone to save my ass from stupid choices I made..

I can see where you'd consider that a highly flawed, and selfish personality characteristic.

As for "respect for others", I give them the same respect I'm given. You, my dear Pud, haven't shown anyone here an ounce of respect since your "blazing debut". Why should you be worthy of anything other than my disdain? You have yet to show that you, yourself, have any admirable qualities, and deserve ANY type of respect.

 

[Bern80]

No the 2 people are parents AFTER the child is born. When an egg and fertilize, it's not a child just yet and has no feeling or senses therefore, there is no reason to be concern about what it feels, etc. Do you show the same concern for all the lives out there that go hungry at night or that are homeless, abused? What about their concern and safety?

So the parents have no responsibilty towards the health of the child before it is actually born?

Of course the biggest focus is on the woman since it effects her the most AT THAT POINT IN TIME AS THE CHILD DOES NOT EXIST AS OF YET.

And again my question is when does it exist? I simply don't beleive that the baby is someone less human or non-human right before it is born. That child is no biologically different right before it is before than right after.

Ah ha!!! AT SOME POINT. So there is a time when that fetus (not child) is a person, therefore your argument holds no water. 90% of abortions occur in the trimester, it's not like women willy nilly decide to get one because they changed their minds.

I believe you have made an assumption about my argument here. I never said abortions should be completely outlawed. But I do believe at some point in the womb and before it is actually born that fertilized egg becomes a feeling person. To kill that person constitutes murder by most legal definitions.

You don't like it when people make assumptions about you, yet you continuously do this.

I took nothing you said out of context. The crux of your original post and as you later stated was to give one rationale for why abortion should be acceptable. The rationale you chose to use was that children of unplanned pregnancies typically have more difficult lives than planned ones and we should spare them that.

You just contradicted yourself as the government would have full jurisdiction over telling women what to do with their bodies if they become pregnant with you logic.More importantly, you're giving a fetus who cannot survive without the mother a non-person status (which in itself doesn't make sense because it doesn't make the fetus a person...what does it make it?)

I believe you have read this wrong as well. I will try to rephrase. I agree with the following two statements: 1) The gov't shouldn't tell anybody what to do with their own body. 2) The gov't should protect innocent human life

If abortion is legal than there is a problem because the government clearly can not fulfill both of the above. Unless of course we can establish at what point a fetus becomes human. As I said that would make the easier and thus both of the above can be accomplished.

The other contradiction is that by allowing abortion or allowing the choice you are depriving someone of the vary thing you claim to be protecting.

I believe you have said before that you disagree with abortions in the last-trimester but you don't want to deprive someone of the choice. I believe at a certain point a fetus becomes a breathing, concious, sentient human. To end that life is murder, there is no two ways about it. Unless of course you don't believe a that thing in the womb is human until it is actually born. Which from a biological standpoint makes no sense to me.

 

[Bern80]

It's about you making the decision you think is right for *yourself* and me making the decision I think is right for *myself*.

No, it is about you making the choice that is best for the child.

 

[Puddles]

I've never had an abortion, I've never asked for handouts from the Government, I've never been unemployed, I've worked for everything I have, I believe people should be held to a higher standard than that of animals, I practice what I preach, and I'm willing to bust my ass to get what I want in life without expecting anything to be given to me, and I've never expected anyone to save my ass from stupid choices I made..

All that can be applied to me as well...don't think you're so special or unique and should be held up on pedestal. Even if I or someone else didn't fit into your warped description of a good person with high morals, doesn't mean they are any less of a person.

I can see where you'd consider that a highly flawed, and selfish personality characteristic.

You are not only severely flawed and selfish, you are despicable because you are ignorant, uncultured, ill-informed, closed mined and judgmental. If people don't subscribe to your brand of morals you spit on them, you're sick.

As for "respect for others", I give them the same respect I'm given. You, my dear Pud, haven't shown anyone here an ounce of respect since your "blazing debut". Why should you be worthy of anything other than my disdain? You have yet to show that you, yourself, have any admirable qualities, and deserve ANY type of respect.

Why the hell would I or anyone else want anything (especially respect) from a piece of trailer trash like you? I wasn't talk about board respect btw, you're too worthless so I won't bother explaining it to you.

 

[Puddles]

So the parents have no responsibilty towards the health of the child before it is actually born?

Of course there is a responsibility but those women who feel they have no responsibility shouldn't be having kids and if there is option is to have an abortion instead of abuse the kid, then I rather them haven an abortion before the child exists.

And again my question is when does it exist? I simply don't beleive that the baby is someone less human or non-human right before it is born. That child is no biologically different right before it is before than right after.

I can't answer that because I don't know the right answer. I don't think anyone can really answer that question without personal biased/agenda/beliefs.

I believe you have made an assumption about my argument here. I never said abortions should be completely outlawed. But I do believe at some point in the womb and before it is actually born that fertilized egg becomes a feeling person. To kill that person constitutes murder by most legal definitions.

There's no argument from me about that.

I took nothing you said out of context. The crux of your original post and as you later stated was to give one rationale for why abortion should be acceptable. The rationale you chose to use was that children of unplanned pregnancies typically have more difficult lives than planned ones and we should spare them that.

That's cool.

I believe you have read this wrong as well. I will try to rephrase. I agree with the following two statements: 1) The gov't shouldn't tell anybody what to do with their own body. 2) The gov't should protect innocent human life

If abortion is legal than there is a problem because the government clearly can not fulfill both of the above. Unless of course we can establish at what point a fetus becomes human. As I said that would make the easier and thus both of the above can be accomplished.

The other contradiction is that by allowing abortion or allowing the choice you are depriving someone of the vary thing you claim to be protecting.

I don't think I read this wrong, I understood it the same as the first time you explained it. Maybe I'm mis-understanding why you're making this point.

I believe you have said before that you disagree with abortions in the last-trimester but you don't want to deprive someone of the choice. I believe at a certain point a fetus becomes a breathing, concious, sentient human. To end that life is murder, there is no two ways about it. Unless of course you don't believe a that thing in the womb is human until it is actually born. Which from a biological standpoint makes no sense to me.

No I don't agree with it at all Bern but I think 3rd trimester abortions are only done if there mother's life is in danger...I don't think any sane woman would wait until 7+ months to have an abortion - and usually by that time the baby would be able to survive outside the womb, many women give birth to pre-mature babies.

 

[Bern80]

I don't know what part of BIRTH CONTROL ISN'T GUARANTEED TO WORK ALL THE TIME, that you don't understand. There's disclaimers on condom box, birth control packaging. The way you're talking is that abortion in most cases occurs when slutty women have goofed and now are using abortion as post birth control. You have nothing to back up the that claim. As a women I thought you would have more respect, understanding and common sense about such issues but apparently not.

And how many times do we have to say it: WHAT FUCKING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Protection not workin 2% of the time does not automatically entitle you to an abortion.

What is interesting that all you "pro-lifers" never ever address what were to happen AFTER a woman decides to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. I bet none of you even know about how adoption option works or what it entails. So easy for all you to judge others in the comfort of you living room without ever having been in the situation.

You are right, that would be a difficult process, but that is part of taking responsibility for your actions. This is all you keep bringing up is "oh what about all these horrible things the mother will have to go through". Where did you get this asanine idea that life should be inconvenience free? NEWS FLASH: choices have consequences. Relieving people of the consequences of their choices is doing no favor to that person.

Another thing that you so called pro-lifers choose to see is that people who are pro-choice are also pro-abortion - as if we encourage and and promote it. I think it's safe to say that any pro-choicer advocates women have the CHOICE to make whatever decision that is in HER (yes her) best interest as she is the one who will have to give birth and most likely raise the child.

That is simply a fundamental disagreement because I also believe she has obligation to make the best choice for someone that can't yet make their own choices.

She knows the best if she is capable of looking after a child - NO MATTER HOW OR WHY SHE GOT PREGNANT BECAUSE IT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS HOW OR WHY IT HAPPENED. Stop sticking your nose in other people's business!!!

She would have known all that before she got pregnant as well

 

[Bern80]

I can't answer that because I don't know the right answer. I don't think anyone can really answer that question without personal biased/agenda/beliefs.

I think we can answer that scientifically better than you think. Again the problem there is no black and white line that after x period time this fetus becomes human. Ideally, if that could be done, we would say for legal reasons you can't have an abortion after that date, otherwise it is murder and you can be charged as such.

the best we can do at this point however is try two lines. One at a safe point where we know that the pregnancy is not sentient and is basically a collection of unfeeling cells. And another point where we can definatively say that collection fo cells has become a feeling human. I think we are at point scientifically where we have the ability to do that and be confident in that decision.

I don't think I read this wrong, I understood it the same as the first time you explained it. Maybe I'm mis-understanding why you're making this point.

It's a point I'm trying to make in saying that if you agree with both of those, and I can't see why you wouldn't, then at the very least there needs to be further debate as to wether there are acual legal issues in ending a life at some point that trumps ones right to choose.

 

[jillian]

I hate to break it to you, Cookie, but if their relationship isn't such that they can "agree on a course of action", then they had no business sleeping together in the *first* place.

Also, if you're going to make a decision thats "right for you", shouldn't that decision be made *prior* to having unprotected sex? Or, is it your way to just go along with what feels good now, and damn the consequences, because you can just kill that particular consequence off later?

Cookie? How respectful. OK. I'll be equally blunt. What made you the arbiter of when people can sleep together?

Do you think by using the word "kill", you're going to change my mind? My point again, since it seems to have escaped you the first time, is that people find themselves pregnant when perhaps they didn't intend to. And the very people who are so moralistic and holier-than-thou when it comes to deciding that women should be punished for their "indiscretions" have no business inserting themselves into other people's decisions.

Do you object to the morning after pill?

Sex education?

Providing condoms to high school kids?

Daycare and education for single moms?

Or is it all about how they should shut up and suck it up and have a baby they aren't ready to care for or are incapable of caring for?

Do you want to insert yourself into the personal decision made by a couple to selectively reduce a pregnancy that they fought for by using in vitro?

Do you want to force a couple to have a child who will never be able to care for itself by cutting off the right to abortion prior to the date on which such a couple could ever have the results of an amniocentesis or act upon it?

Come on... let's hear how the small government folk want the government sticking its nose into our personal mores and decisions.

 

[Bern80]

Do you think by using the word "kill", you're going to change my mind? My point again, since it seems to have escaped you the first time, is that people find themselves pregnant when perhaps they didn't intend to.

Woman don't find themselves pregnant. I would think woman would know the biology of their own bodies well enough to know that their is always the chance of pregnant. Protection or not. There are consequences for brief periods of pleasure, i.e. haveing sex, which I'm certainly not against people haveing. Just take responsibilty for your choices and the consequences that may entail.

And the very people who are so moralistic and holier-than-thou when it comes to deciding that women should be punished for their "indiscretions" have no business inserting themselves into other people's decisions.

Trying to get people to take responsibility for their choices is punishment?

Speaking for myself on the following:

Do you object to the morning after pill?

no

Sex education?

no

Providing condoms to high school kids?

yes

Daycare and education for single moms?

no

Or is it all about how they should shut up and suck it up and have a baby they aren't ready to care for or are incapable of caring for?

In that they take responsibility for their actions? yes

Do you want to insert yourself into the personal decision made by a couple to selectively reduce a pregnancy that they fought for by using in vitro?

I don't beleive it is me or anyone else inserting themselves into the decision. I believe an argument can be made though that the law (murder is illegal) at some point should be inserted in to the decision

Do you want to force a couple to have a child who will never be able to care for itself by cutting off the right to abortion prior to the date on which such a couple could ever have the results of an amniocentesis or act upon it?

Those are all thing you nor anyone else can possibly predict. You would end a life over what might happen?

Come on... let's hear how the small government folk want the government sticking its nose into our personal mores and decisions.

The gov't has it's business in lots of our decisons, not just this one. Primarily the ones where our decisons affect other people. Which abortion does.

 

[Shattered]

Cookie? How respectful. OK. I'll be equally blunt. What made you the arbiter of when people can sleep together?

Do you think by using the word "kill", you're going to change my mind? My point again, since it seems to have escaped you the first time, is that people find themselves pregnant when perhaps they didn't intend to. And the very people who are so moralistic and holier-than-thou when it comes to deciding that women should be punished for their "indiscretions" have no business inserting themselves into other people's decisions.

Do you object to the morning after pill?

Sex education?

Providing condoms to high school kids?

Daycare and education for single moms?

Or is it all about how they should shut up and suck it up and have a baby they aren't ready to care for or are incapable of caring for?

Do you want to insert yourself into the personal decision made by a couple to selectively reduce a pregnancy that they fought for by using in vitro?

Do you want to force a couple to have a child who will never be able to care for itself by cutting off the right to abortion prior to the date on which such a couple could ever have the results of an amniocentesis or act upon it?

Come on... let's hear how the small government folk want the government sticking its nose into our personal mores and decisions.

Obviously, if they're not mature enough to have a contingency plan that doesn't involve murder, they're not ready to sleep together.. If their parents didn't teach them that, then someone else has to point it out. Obviously, you don't get it.

The morning after pill - If used to "fix" an "oops", hell yes I object to it. If used after a rape, no, I don't object to it.

Sex education - Iffy. I believe most knowledge should come from your parents. But I believe kids should take Health Ed classes.

Condoms to kids - Not the schools place, but again, the parents place. High school kids have no need for condoms. If you're not ready to support YOURSELF, you're obviously not ready to support another potential human being. Don't have sex.

Daycare/Education to single moms - Hell yes. Anything that will help keep them off welfare.

I don't know what planet you were raised on, but where I come from, people think things through, and face consequences for their actions because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Puddles]

And how many times do we have to say it: WHAT FUCKING DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? Protection not workin 2% of the time does not automatically entitle you to an abortion.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCES TO YOU , but guess what? You're never going to be pregnant (I'm assuming you're male) so you don't have to worry about it.

If a woman doesn't want to have a baby and does everything to protect herself from getting pregnant but still does, she has the right to have the option to terminate the pregnancy, it's none of you concern.

For anyone (not directed at you specifically) to even suggest a couple (particularly in relationship) not have sex in the small chance they get pregnant and not be able to care for it, is absolutely absurd and they probably have an unfulfilling or non-existent sex life to make such a foolish argument.

You are right, that would be a difficult process, but that is part of taking responsibility for your actions. This is all you keep bringing up is "oh what about all these horrible things the mother will have to go through". Where did you get this asanine idea that life should be inconvenience free? NEWS FLASH: choices have consequences. Relieving people of the consequences of their choices is doing no favor to that person.

I don't believe a baby exist at conception, and you apparently do (if you didn't you wouldn't be making this argument). More importantly, I don't feel the need to force my opinion on others when it has nothing to do with me, nor do I feel the need to judge others for their actions.

 

[GeeWhiz]

Giuliani is an abortion loving guy and you Republicans put him ahead of the other runners.

So much for your concern about unborn children. Bravo

 

[Shattered]

Giuliani is an abortion loving guy and you Republicans put him ahead of the other runners.

So much for your concern about unborn children. Bravo

Abortion loving? Hardly.

Given who the other choices are, he's the lesser of all evils.. What does that tell you?

 

[GeeWhiz]

Abortion loving? Hardly.

Given who the other choices are, he's the lesser of all evils.. What does that tell you?

Ouch my post bothered you didn't it. You even ran to knock down my rep and all I was going on was this:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...0,673015.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

Originally published April 6, 2007

CHARLESTON, S.C. // Rudolph W. Giuliani, campaigning in South Carolina, firmly stated that as president he would not seek to make abortion illegal.

Aware of the damage his position might do to him among some conservative voters, Giuliani said that if someone was inclined to vote against him solely because of his stance on abortion, then so be it.

He said it I didn't. Giuliani would rather loose the election than to change his mind about keeping abortion legal.

And then I came across this:

http://strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_040407.htm

1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, Fred Thompson, and Tommy Thompson for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated)
Rudy Giuliani 25%
John McCain 20%
Fred Thompson 11%
Mitt Romney 8%
Newt Gingrich 6%
Tommy Thompson 3%
Sam Brownback 3%
Chuck Hagel 2%
Tom Tancredo 2%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Jim Gilmore 1%
Ron Paul 1%
Duncan Hunter 1%
Undecided 15%

And you ran to the rep board and posted this:

If you want to be an idiot in private, that's fine. Kindly refrain from displaying your idiocy so blatantly in public.

Just the facts maam, just the facts.

 

[Shattered]

Ouch my post bothered you didn't it. You even ran to knock down my rep and all I was going on was this:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...0,673015.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines



He said it I didn't. Giuliani would rather loose the election than to change his mind about keeping abortion legal.

And then I came across this:

http://strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_040407.htm



And you ran to the rep board and posted this:



Just the facts maam, just the facts.

So, you refer to him as "abortion loving just because he refuses to change what he believes for the masses, and a "win"? Since when do we crucify people for being true to themselves?

Incidently, I dinged you not for "facts" as you see them, but for your obviously ignorant, and tasteless post. Because he won't make abortion illegal, for whatever reason, that means he loves it? Bullshit.

I don't believe in abortion, except for very rare, and extreme circumstances, but I don't believe it should be made illegal, either, *because* of those rare circumstances.

 

[jasendorf]

So, you refer to him as "abortion loving just because he refuses to change what he believes for the masses, and a "win"? Since when do we crucify people for being true to themselves?

Every single day if they're a Democrat. Every single day. We're talking about a Republican party that excuses its politicians for calling Vietnam combat veterans "cowards" on the House floor...

Incidently, I dinged you not for "facts" as you see them, but for your obviously ignorant, and tasteless post. Because he won't make abortion illegal, for whatever reason, that means he loves it? Bullshit.

So you go around dinging every person who says liberals are "pro-abortion"?

I don't believe in abortion, except for very rare, and extreme circumstances, but I don't believe it should be made illegal, either, *because* of those rare circumstances.

So, you're with the rest of the normal people... like me and GeeWhiz and Giuliani. Fair enough. Think enough of the Republican Party agrees with us?

 

[Gunny]

kudos to Giuliani.

The world would be a much nicer place when people realize that after the birth of an unwanted pregnancy comes a child who is very likely to grow up in an environment may not not safe or loving. Often children from these backgrounds are dependent on social services, which now a days are very minimal...often leading to other means of survival (usually involving crime)

"Pro-lifers" aren't about pro-life at all. They are more interested in asserting their power over someone (when they have absolutely NOTHING to do with it) and make sure this child "lives" but don't give 2 shits what happens AFTER the child is born or the quality of life the child has.

Who has better judgment if they can raise a child, the parents or total strangers harping about "pro life"?

Who does the burden fall on? Tax payers. Then you have the same exact people who adamantly oppose abortion, bitch about lazy bastards mootching of the system...unbelievable.

NEWS FLASH: BIRTH CONTROL ISN'T 100% EFFECTIVE...stop using the same tired excuse that about the woman using birth control...she can still get pregnant!

You are sweeping with a broad brush, and using nothing but stereotypical accusations, while attempting to downplay using abortion as a means of birth control.

Abortion has a role as a legitimate, medical procedure. Where the life of the mother is in jeopardy, rape, incest ... I can see a legtimate reason. I can even see it in the case of someone who conscienciously attempted to used some form of protection.

Using abortion as a means of birth control is wrong, period.

Your argument that being opposed to lazy bastards mooching off the system is somehow correlated to also being opposed to using tax dollars to fund abortions is nothing more than bullshit.

Since when does one wrong justify another wrong? There is no correaltion between one and the other except that in both instances, tax dollars are being used to enable irresponsible people.

 

[Bern80]

If a woman doesn't want to have a baby and does everything to protect herself from getting pregnant but still does, she has the right to have the option to terminate the pregnancy, it's none of you concern.

Since I can't seem to get you to wrap your head around this, forget abortion for a second and answer the following:

Do you believe that people should accept the consequences of, and take responsibilty for their actions?

For anyone (not directed at you specifically) to even suggest a couple (particularly in relationship) not have sex in the small chance they get pregnant and not be able to care for it, is absolutely absurd and they probably have an unfulfilling or non-existent sex life to make such a foolish argument.

No it means I am not one of a group of people that demands all the pleasure derived from an action while refusing to accept any of the consequences.

I don't believe a baby exist at conception, and you apparently do (if you didn't you wouldn't be making this argument). More importantly, I don't feel the need to force my opinion on others when it has nothing to do with me, nor do I feel the need to judge others for their actions.

I believe I quite clearly stated earlier that I don't believe that. What I said was I believe at some point in the womb and before born that bunch of cells become a feeling human. I believe after that point to abort it is murder, because we have laws against killing innocent humans. If that is indeed the case then it doesn't matter what my opinion is, as it has become a legal issue.

 

[Puddles]

Since I can't seem to get you to wrap your head around this, forget abortion for a second and answer the following:

I don't need to wrap my head around your thinking. I fully understand what you're saying and I disagree with it,simple as that.

Do you believe that people should accept the consequences of, and take responsibilty for their actions?

Yes I do. Abortion is accepting consequence and taking responsibility...you just choose not to see it that way.

I believe I quite clearly stated earlier that I don't believe that. What I said was I believe at some point in the womb and before born that bunch of cells become a feeling human. I believe after that point to abort it is murder, because we have laws against killing innocent humans. If that is indeed the case then it doesn't matter what my opinion is, as it has become a legal issue.

I know you said that but your other arguments show otherwise. If you don't regard a bunch of cells as a human being, then what is your problem if a woman choses to abort those cells before it develops into a human???? You do realize that happens naturally all the time, right?

 

[Dr Grump]

The morning after pill - If used to "fix" an "oops", hell yes I object to it.

Why? Are you so mean you'd make people live with a mistake just to prove a point? What is the difference between the morning after pill, a condom, the pill or any other form of contreception? Weird....