The New York Times reported yesterday Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani is planning to affirm his pro-abortion position for strategic reasons: Many liberal states have bumped up their primary date to "Tsunami Tuesday," February 5, ahead of primaries of more conservative states. According to the NYT:

Mr. Giuliani's campaign... is eyeing a path to the nomination that would try to de-emphasize the early states in which abortion opponents wield a great deal of influence. Instead they would focus on the so-called mega-primary of Feb. 5, in which voters in states like California, New York and New Jersey are likely to be more receptive to Mr. Giuliani's social views than voters in Iowa and South Carolina.

Giuliani is gambling he can win the nomination with the minority pro-abortion GOP vote as the sole abortion supporter in a field of 10.

This means Giuliani is not just taking a personal gamble, he is gambling the entire Republican Party.

According to Time magazine, Giuliani has "decided that the reign of social conservatives is coming to an end. 'He understands that there are a lot of Republicans out there who are sick of everyone kowtowing to the single-issue extremists,' said one veteran Republican observer in Washington. 'He's breaking from the pack.'"

I wonder why MSM never considers that Democrat voters might be getting sick of their party's radical support of abortion. Nevertheless, the conservatives response, quoting the NYT:

[S]aid Phyllis Schlafly... "The Republican Party has been pro-life in its platform ever since 1976, the first platform after Roe, and I think most of the Republicans understand they can't afford to lose the pro-life constituency."

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the conservative magazine, said, "You can't win as a pro-choicer who is going to deliberately set on challenging the party's orthodoxy on the issue."

Abortion has emerged as the central news issue this past week thanks to an examination of Romney's pro-life conversion and Giuliani's equivocation during the debates.

Bearing in mind education is key, pro-lifers should view these unfolding events as a gift and not a threat and focus on educating the American public on what it means to be "pro-choice."

The polls are in our favor. Most Americans oppose late-term abortions. Most Americans oppose abortion for convenience - as a secondary means of birth control. Most importantly, we have the truth on our side.

At some point down the road we're going to have to decide as a group to support one of the nine pro-life candidates. We don't have to do that yet. They are all still wooing us, and we should take this time to get as many promises from them we can. But the day will come.

The polls are not in your favor. Most americans in general, don't want abortion banned.

I think Guiliani has latched on to something very important: Most conservatives are reasonable people and they beleive their party has been high-jacked by an increasingly extreme minority of zealots.

Actually Cameron, it's the opposite. Most conservatives are grateful to have a stong base that is committed to principle. They see it as something to build on.

I think the polls can be read to mean that while most Americans don't like abortion, most also don't want the government to ban it. I wonder if the pro-life people on this site could accept a position like "I'll do everything in my power to convince people not to have abortions, but I won't advocate government coercion on this issue."

Also, I think Guiliani is making a huge mistake. His 911 reputation is only going to go so far and I can't tell you the numbers of times people ask me if there is anybody who is pro-life that they can vote for.

Hal, the problem with what you are saying is that government mandates laws against the will of the people all the time.

As a matter of fact, every single law that exists is a matter of enforcing someones will on someone else.

Why is abortion so different? What makes it special that we cannot outlaw or ban it without pro-lifers being accused of "coercing" the law?

Hal, reversing faulty constitutional law could harldy be considered coercion.

Thanks Andrew, you said that much better than I did.

I watched Giuliani on the morning news. He really flip-flops when it comes to the abortion issue. One minute he's trumpeting about pro choice this and pro choice that. The next minute he claims he hates abortion, and he refuses to answer questions on the issue. Which is it Rudy? You can't have it both ways.

Hal, yes I agree,

Will you agree to this one as well:

"I'll do everything in my power to convince people not to murder, but I won't advocate government coercion on this issue"

what do ya say? are you with me?

Andrew, I wasn't speaking of fixing the problems with Roe. With or without Roe, we're going to have an abortion debate in this country (especially if Roe is overturned) I was talking in more general terms, is it a valid pro-life position to work against abortion through means other than a ban?

sure, all laws enforce the will of some against the will of others,but we don't rely on that for everything. We don't (hopefully) outlaw smoking although we try to convince everyone to stop. Smoking (by the way) has gone down as a result.

what makes abortion "so different?" One reason is that Americans are very uncomfortable with the idea of banning this procedure. Other is that women who want abortion will get them regardless of the law. Rich women will go to Canada or Europe,poor women will find a way in this country.

I'm not saying an argument can't be made to outlaw abortion (so I don't need to hear them all again). I acknowledge the arguement that abortion is murder and can and should be outlawed. I'm wondering about the arguement that "abortion is wrong and should be discouraged but not banned" Is that an option? or not?

"I'm wondering about the arguement that "abortion is wrong and should be discouraged but not banned" Is that an option? or not?"

No

Hal, I thinkj the difference between smoking and abortion involves their respective affects on others.

Smoking may potentially do harm to others, but not in the same cut and dry way of abortion. Smoking harms the smoker, while abortion harms a thrid party. While I mostly disagree with legislation of activities that cause only personal harm, I do not hesitate to support legislation that prevents the harm of others.

As far as methods other than an outright ban:

I think that we must employ methods of reduction that correspond with a ban. Doing one but not the other will not solve the problem.

Hal, I understand what you are doing, but what I am referring to is the underlying logic that follows this.

Do we legalize bank robbery because people are going to do it no matter what the law says? Do we legalize child molestation because some groups want it legal and do it anyways despite its status in the law?

Replace the word "abortion" with "bank robbery" in your question and you get: "bank robbery is wrong and should be discouraged but not banned" Is that an option? or not?"

Obviously not and we can say that because we know that abortion hurts the mother and kills the child and enacting a ban against abortion is a way of protecting people from harmful behaviours DESPITE what others think or say about that particular behaviour. This is how the law works.

The MSM sees abortion an issue only for Republicans but not Democrats. They worry about the Pope's influence on American politics.

Sorry, I can't stand the liberal MSM, their bias is so obvious:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12692

"Actually Cameron, it's the opposite. Most conservatives are grateful to have a stong base that is committed to principle. They see it as something to build on."

Who do you think is loosing votes to the Libertarian party? Why do you think they're loosing votes to the Libertarian party?

"He really flip-flops when it comes to the abortion issue."

Flip-flop means he's changing his mind, not that he doesn't agree with you... that's from the 2004 GOP talkingpoints playbook. You should try to update your trash talk.

I don't think anyone is losing votes to the Libertarian party. Actually, there are more Libertarians coming over to the GOP ie.. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.

"I don't think anyone is losing votes to the Libertarian party."

The libertarian party is growing, but so far has had few candidates in important elections. So, actually losing votes, not quite just yet. They're growth however, is fuiled by mostly conservatives that beleive in a seperation of church and state, and that "strong base committed to principle" is viewed as the biggest threat to our consitution since it was signed by the founding fathers.

They're losing votes but growing? Makes no sense..

NONE!

"They're losing votes but growing? Makes no
sense."

Well Andrew, there's this thing called the future, and it comes right after the present, and .... Are you drinking already?

I spose I could of said it better.
My point: Giuliani is going to have broader appeal than a right wing nut pandering to evangelicals interested in theocracy. I base this on the fact that the libertarian party is growing, and that I believe this growth is largely due to conservatives who believe in separation of church and state.

OK, still waiting for an explanation that makes sense...

I can't help you if you can't figure out the working parts of brick.

Ron Paul is a right-to-lifer. How an obstetrician like him, who has spent a significant part of his life helping women endure labor/delivery, can advocate forcing women to go through it against their wills for babies they don't want, is a mystery. How a libertarian can advocate government intervening between a woman and her doctor is also mysterious. But the fact remains, he's a right-to-lifer and pro-choice libertarians should think carefully about supporting him.

The answer to all this is: Draft Robert K. Dornan. The only true right-to-lifer in the potential field. He's the only one who really cares about the issue.

All right SOMG,
I'll play.
I know it's a setup but here goes...
What's up with you and Bob Dornan?
Go ahead, drop the bomb and get it over with!

online gambling recommendations http://online-gambling-recommendations.ovp.pl >recommendations gambling online

Dr. Death threat. That last post was juvenile.

SOMG,

Are you losing it?

Changing your name to Dr. Defense, Bobforprez and gambling recommendations online is not helping your case...

You're not only a sociopath, I think you might have multiple personalities...

Most of which are creepy!

Very creepy. He goes for the shock value. He's totally juvenile! He loves to push the envelope.

Smoggy, second death threat in a week. Becoming more terrifed by truth, are we?

online gambling recommendations http://online-gambling-recommendations.direct.to >recommendations gambling online

online gambling recommendations http://online-gambling-recommendations.direct.to >recommendations gambling online

cheapest car insurance homeloans http://car-cheapest-insurance.blog.drecom.jp >car insurance equity cheapest

cheapest car insurance homeloans http://car-cheapest-insurance.blog.drecom.jp >car insurance equity cheapest