Giuliani Voices Continued Support for Public Funding of Abortion

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/april/0405_giuliani_abortion.shtml

Giuliani: Public funding for abortion OK
By UPI Staff
United Press International
April 5, 2007

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (UPI) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani Wednesday said he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he held as mayor, CNN reported.

The remark is likely put the Republican presidential nomination contender at odds with social conservatives, CNN said.

"Ultimately, it's a constitutional right, and therefore if it's a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state-by-state basis, you have to make sure people are protected," Giuliani said in an interview with CNN.

A video of Giuliani when he was running for New York mayor in 1989 showed up recently on the Internet.

"There must be public funding for abortions for poor women," Giuliani says in the clip posted on YouTube. "We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decisions about abortion."

In Wednesday's interview, Giuliani said he supports public funding for some abortions.
And he's the darling of the Republican Party.
 

Puddles

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
282
Reaction score
42
Points
16
:clap2: 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!
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
:clap2: 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!
Puddles we had this discussion before, yet your back to preaching your old mantra.

Your justification for abortion now, as it was then, is that it's okay because the baby's life will suck anyway? I'm speechless, other than to say it is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Who has better judgement? Well obviously the parent's judgement sucks or they wouldn't be in that situation in the first place. Would you have us move to a system the way things were done in Minority Report?

Then again, It shouldn't surprise me. One thing I have noticed is that liberals don't believe in the concept of equal opportunity. they believe in equal outcomes and a risk free life. I was born into family that planned for me, yet when i was four I got cancer anyway through not fault of mine or theirs, yet you are saying, and yes you are saying this, if they had known it was going to happen they should have aborted me. Or what about you, were you planned? Should you be here under your pretext?

I am not completely oppossed to abortion, but the rationale you are using is as bad as it gets.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
"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.
and have you considered that you are the opposite extreme? That you are so worried about a possible future that it simply isn't worth the risk?


"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.
I would much rather pay taxes to help when needed then pay to kill an innocent baby (or fetus.... whichever is most convenient for you).
 
OP
J

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
I would much rather pay taxes to help when needed then pay to kill an innocent baby (or fetus.... whichever is most convenient for you).
Too bad the rest of the Republican Party doesn't feel this way.
 

Mr.Conley

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
115
Points
48
Location
New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
There was no question. There was assumption based on nothing and doesn't even qualify as a rebuttal to what I said.
Okay, let's learn something today. Dodging the question is an informal term used as a substitute name for the series of informal relevance fallacies in the system of informal logic. You used one of these fallacies, specifically ad hominem and a form of strawman to "dodge" Jasendorf's statements.

End of lesson.
 
OP
J

jasendorf

Senior Member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
76
Points
48
Location
Ohio
I love how libs pick on the easy stuff and ignore the hard stuff.
No offense... but all of your stuff is easy.

You have stated your position quite clearly. The government should control our reproductive organs. That's your position. Parents are too stupid to make this decision because if they were smart they wouldn't be in a position of considering abortion.

You want the government to decide if a woman has a baby or not. I don't. What's there to debate? We're not going to change each others' minds... so why bother with it?

I do have one thought for you though. Once we, the citizens, turn over our reproductive rights to the government, once we tell the government, "we want you to make laws deciding that women MUST have babies they conceive," what's to prevent that same government from saying, "look, you gave us that right... so we must also have the converse right to make laws deciding that women MUST NOT have babies they conceive."? Once you give away our reproductive rights... they're gone.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
No offense... but all of your stuff is easy.

You have stated your position quite clearly. The government should control our reproductive organs. That's your position. Parents are too stupid to make this decision because if they were smart they wouldn't be in a position of considering abortion.
Amazing, since I never stated what my position was. I was arguing the merits of abortion by attempting to refute Puddle's argument that the reason to have them is that the baby's life will turn out poorly anyway.

You want the government to decide if a woman has a baby or not. I don't. What's there to debate? We're not going to change each others' minds... so why bother with it?
No I want a woman to decide. Preferabbly before she's actually pregnant.

I do have one thought for you though. Once we, the citizens, turn over our reproductive rights to the government, once we tell the government, "we want you to make laws deciding that women MUST have babies they conceive," what's to prevent that same government from saying, "look, you gave us that right... so we must also have the converse right to make laws deciding that women MUST NOT have babies they conceive."? Once you give away our reproductive rights... they're gone.
Your last sentence is completely false because it assumes that laws can't be overturned. Why is it that all you concentrate on is the woman, the woman, the woman. There is another life at stake here, or potential life (whichever helps you sleep better). That is my concern. Once a child is conceived the two people that conceived it are parents and that it is their duty to do what is in the best interest of the child. Puddles argument was that they would be doing what is in the best interest of the child (in her belief) by aborting it because the child will most likely have a poor life because it was an unwanted pregnancy. How many fewere people would there be on this earth on that basis alone do you think? And more to the point how many great people would we not have? Maybe Ghandi or Mother Theresa were unplanned pregnancies who knows. The point is that is all I was arguing. The rationale she chose for protecting abortion is absurd.

All of my posts have been in response to this argument. Never have stated, though you claimed I did for your own convenience, that the government should tell people what choices they can make with their bodies. What gov't should do is protect people. I don't think you would disagree with that. What we probably will disagree on is what constitutes a person. I believe a child in the womb at some point becomes a person. I don't believe they miraculously become a person in the instant it is expelled from the womb. My guess is you do because that is the only way you can reconcile the two aspects of government involvement. 1) Governement should protect people and 2)government shouldn't tell people(woman) what to do with their bodies. This becomes quite the paradox if abortion is okay to you. How can gov't protect life yet allow someone the choice to end an innocent one? Easy, give the thing inside the womb non-person status. Problem solved.
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
I'm pro-choice but think that it should be left up to the States. My concerns with overturning Roe v. Wade is a federal ban on abortion and pulling highway funds on States that make it legal. If they can maintain State's rights and keep highway funding then I'd support overturning Roe v. Wade. But I don't think tax dollars should be wasted on abortions unless it's a medical emergency. No one should have to contribute to funding because some fucker didn't pull out in time.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,493
Reaction score
16,384
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I'm pro-choice but think that it should be left up to the States. My concerns with overturning Roe v. Wade is a federal ban on abortion and pulling highway funds on States that make it legal. If they can maintain State's rights and keep highway funding then I'd support overturning Roe v. Wade. But I don't think tax dollars should be wasted on abortions unless it's a medical emergency. No one should have to contribute to funding because some fucker didn't pull out in time.
So the very women who are most likely to become pregnant, have the least sex education, least abillity to care for themselves and a child and the least ability to travel for an abortion should be denied their right to reproductive choice?
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
So the very women who are most likely to become pregnant, have the least sex education, least abillity to care for themselves and a child and the least ability to travel for an abortion should be denied their right to reproductive choice?
If Roe v Wade gets overturned, not every State is going to make it illegal. Only some of the Red States will. If that means that hicks in Alabama are going to have to return to the coat hanger days or have to travel to Florida for an abortion, oh well. That's the price they pay for voting in anti-abortion laws.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,493
Reaction score
16,384
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
If Roe v Wade gets overturned, not every State is going to make it illegal. Only some of the Red States will. If that means that hicks in Alabama are going to have to return to the coat hanger days or have to travel to Florida for an abortion, oh well. That's the price they pay for voting in anti-abortion laws.
But the people who need most to avail themselves of that right wouldn't be the ones voting against it... or possibly even voting at all since they might be under the age when they could do so.

I don't think anyone should have to die using a coat hanger.

And it shouldn't be left to the states any more than civil rights should.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
So the very women who are most likely to become pregnant, have the least sex education, least abillity to care for themselves and a child and the least ability to travel for an abortion should be denied their right to reproductive choice?
at the expense of another's right to life?
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
84,493
Reaction score
16,384
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
at the expense of another's right to life?
That's what *you* believe.

Me? I believe there's a big difference between life and potential life and you don't have the right to impose your religious belief that a life exists at conception on me....same as I would never tell anyone they had to have an abortion.
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
But the people who need most to avail themselves of that right wouldn't be the ones voting against it... or possibly even voting at all since they might be under the age when they could do so.
Maybe. But if restricting abortions are that damaging then those underage kids who were denied abortions may grow up to be pro-choice voters and change the State.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top