Mike Gerson Zaps Giuliani on the Life Issue
Why Personal Opposition/Public Legality Doesn't Add Up Here
By Hunter Baker Posted in 2008 | Life Issues | Rudy — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Washington Post has a piece up by the former top Bush speechwriter Mike Gerson in which the wordsmith takes on Giuliani's abortion stance known by many as the "Cuomo position."
Take a peek:
In early debates and statements, he has set out his views on this topic with all the order and symmetry of a freeway pileup. His argument comes down to this: "I hate abortion," which is "morally wrong." But "people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that's her choice, not mine. That's her morality, not mine."
This is a variant of the position developed by New York Gov. Mario Cuomo in 1985. In this view, the Catholic Church's belief in the immorality of abortion is correct, in the same sense that its belief in the Immaculate Conception is correct. Both beliefs are religious, private and should not be enforced by government.
But the question naturally arises: Why does Giuliani "hate" abortion? No one feels moral outrage about an appendectomy. Clearly he is implying his support for the Catholic belief that an innocent life is being taken. And here the problems begin.
How can the violation of a fundamental human right be viewed as a private matter? Not everything that is viewed as immoral should be illegal; there are no compelling public reasons to restrict adultery, for example, or to outlaw sodomy. But when morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference.
END.
« Poppies in Iraq and Arabs in Afghanistan: Did Barack Obama “Pull a McCain” in his SpeechTuesday Night ? — Comments (6)
Mike Gerson Zaps Giuliani on the Life Issue 11 Comments (0 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
To say that Romney gets a free pass on abortion is laughable. Here is the key difference between the Romney and Rudy in case you missed it. Romney has embraced the pro-life movement and promised to govern asa pro-life president. Rudy still shuns the pro-life movement.
Nothing new here.
is the difference between Romney and Rudy on pro-life issues.
Some don't believe Romney's conversion to being an openly 'pro-life' politician, but he has castigated the Mass supreme court decision on gay marriage and fought to support the FMA, called for Roe v Wade to be overturned, and in general 'gets it' on the judges issue, above and beyond his position on stem cell, etc. which is similar to G W Bush.
Rudy on the other hand made it clear in debate #1 that to him a 'constitutional judge-the-laws' judge could vote like Justice Ginsburg and it would be okay with him. He's not backed off his positions.
He's not pro-life and we can expect judges who vote accordingly.
The non-believer might question a bit more why one professional politician seems to change his views on core issues each time he is running for a new office, or is in front of a new potential constituency.
That same observer might also find refreshing the fact that a different candidate, while holding a distasteful (if not completely untenable) position, actually has the guts to stick to what he believes, and to show voters what they're getting, allowing them to make their own, informed-by-truth decision.
Just a thought.
He is just plain wrong, ghoulishly so.
His wide open embrace of NARAL and his sticking to the Coumo position on abortion is many things, but certainly NOT 'refreshing'.
You can choose to find Romney's conversion too convenient to believe, but it still is more palatable than openly defying the pro-life core of the party. It should also be pointed out that Romney changed in 2005 and influenced state law in his adoption of pro-life position, and that as mentioned he was against the gay marriage push. I refer you to the James Bopp piece on Romney for more details on this:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWYwMzg3MzZkNDBmYzJhMGY5OTY5MjI3YTY...
Poke around the site for a little while with your eyes open and mouth shut, lest you (to borrow a phrase from my good friend streiff) beclown yourself again.
I call these folks POTABs (Personally Opposed To Abortion, But . . .) because they claim to oppose abortion, but also say that they do not believe that they can impose their beliefs on others.
But when you ask them WHY they are personally opposed to abortion, the whole thing falls apart. If they are Catholics who believe that an unborn child is a human life, why in the world would they think it was improper to "impose" their belief on others?
If they do not believe that the unborn child is a human being, then why are they personally opposed?
For most of them, the REAL answer is that they are personally opposed to taking any position that will threaten their chances for gaining or retaining power . . .
BRASSBAND77
when morality demands respect for the rights of a human being, those protections become a matter of social justice, not just personal or religious preference.
Human language can be a sloppy medium for transmitting ideas. For example, consider the phrases "go with your gut," and "do as your heart tells you." In both cases, we incorrectly refer to organs other than the brain as the source of thought, feelings, and instincts.
But what of the soul?
Yes, it too is just another name for a function of the brain. And when our brain dies, so too does our "spirit." Therefore, while unquestionably human and still physically alive (beating heart, breathing lungs, etc), the clinically brain-dead person's personality, memory, and emotions have ceased to exist.
Why is this important?
Because the fetus does not even begin to develop rudimentary brain structures until the neural tube (later the spine) closes -- about three weeks after conception. Without a brain, there can be no thoughts, no "guts," no "heart," or no "soul."
.