Rudy’s off my list
Mar 14th, 2007 by Amanda
For me, Rudy Guiliani was a front-funner for the Republican nod for the 2008 elections.
Then I saw this.
“There must be public funding for abortions for poor women. We cannot deny any woman the right to make her own decision about abortion because she lacks resources.”
You’ve gotta be kidding me.
First off, no woman is denied the right to make her own decision about abortion. There are resources out there. Privately funded resources. Planned Parenthood ring a bell? If anything, women are encouraged to abort babies in this country.
Secondly, we can and should deny women rights that they shouldn’t have! We don’t, of course. But we should.
That being said, I honestly don’t think making abortion* illegal is the solution. Women would still find a way, and that would put even more lives in danger. I don’t know what the solution is. Education, definitely. More affordable/free birth control. I don’t know.
What I do know is that, almost across the board, abortion views are a deal breaker for me when it comes to electing officials.
*I am not referring to late-term or partial birth abortions here. Those unequivocally should be illegal, across the board, no matter the circumstance.
Me too, though I’m quite sure we reside on opposite sides of that fence.
This is the only thing I’ve heard Rudy say that I do agree with.
Not that it matters for me, I simply will not vote for any Republican, for any reason, for any office, until the party publicly disavows pretty much every single thing it currently stands for.
It’s the party of anti-JanieBelle.
You and I are on opposite sides of the fence on nearly everything, dear Janie.
It seems silly to me to vote for parties, rather than people. It doesn’t matter who the candidate is, no single candidate is going to stand for everything on a party platform. It just won’t happen. It’s because the parties are made up of so many people that this is true.
It’s entirely possible that I will vote for a Democrat in the 2008 elections. But not because he/she is a
Democrat. Because I agree with what that candidate stands for.
I look at what the candidates say, not the party. If I don’t like it, they don’t get my vote.
Oh, you misunderstand, Dear Amanda. I will not vote for a Democrat because she is a Democrat.
It is unfortunately true that my voting choices will be primarily determined by who I will NOT vote for.
That’s a shame, I think.
I will NOT vote for an anti-abortion rights/anti-women’s equality candidate.
I will NOT vote for an anti-gay rights candidate.
I will NOT vote for an anti-peace candidate. (ie withdrawal from Iraq and stay out of Syria, Iran, and N. Korea or you don’t get my vote.)
I will NOT vote for an anti-science candidate.
I will NOT vote for an anti-environment candidate.
I will NOT vote for an anti-poor/average American candidate.
I will NOT vote for an anti-free speech candidate.
I will NOT vote for an anti-sexual freedom candidate.
I will NOT vote for an anti-separation of church and state candidate.
Yes, that leaves me with a rather small field of candidates. None of them are Republicans, pretty much by definition.
I suppose I’ll just have to run my own self.
“JanieBelle for Office!”
(I don’t remember anything against fictional people in the Constitution, do you?)
AAAAAAA!
You changed themes while I was typing that.
Freaked me out!
Thanks Amanda! I promise I’d try to do my very best. Maybe I’ll just hijack
The Meat SackThe Boy and make him run. He hates when I do that, but he’ll get over it.Too bad you can’t choose to vote against someone, instead of for someone…lol.
Good blog. I like Rudy for a lot of reasons, but he also has a lot of positions I heartily disagree with.
I am probably going to vote for Ron Paul, should he make it to the general election. As a registered independent I don’t get to vote in primaries.
Amanda, the question becomes: In what context did Rudy make that comment? Could it have been during a time when those very options you mentioned were being threatened? Quote mining in any context is never a good idea. It doesn’t give you a full, clear picture of the situation.
Janie, I’m stealing your list of voting dealbreakers!
Check out Wikipedia: Planned Parenthood receives a huge chunk of change from the government, making it a PUBLICALLY funded organization.
I can’t! Wikipedia is blocked at work.
I don’t know why and it sucks.
And okay. PP is publically funded. That proves my point that there are already resources out there.
Secondly, we can and should deny women rights that they shouldn’t have! We don’t, of course. But we should.
OK, fair enough opinion. But if you want to prevent women from having abortions, you need to get a law passed to stop them having abortions (which will mean convincing the rest of the country that such a law should be passed, which will probably mean finding a reason other than “God says no”).
If you can’t get such a de jure ban on abortions passed, then attempting to create a de facto ban by reducing access to abortions strikes me as… the only polite word I can think of is “sneaky”. It’s trying to do an end run round the freedoms these women legally enjoy. It’s cheating.
Did you read the next sentence I wrote? I don’t think making abortions illegal is the solution to the problem.
And I’m sorry, but using the words “legally enjoy” when talking about a “freedom” like abortion is just…disgusting. Honestly.
I didn’t mean that last bit to sound that snarky. I just couldn’t think of another word that would fit there.
There really has to be a better way, but until there’s at least one or two more viable parties in national politics, I think that’s what we’re stuck with, and THAT SUCKS!
Please do, MusicGuy! As soon as WP is done screwing around with my blog, I think I’m going to put a post on the front burner about that very comment.
Hear hear! And this is yet another gripe I have against the G.O.P. Not that the Dems don’t do it, but His Holiness the Glorified House Plant Who Currently Occupies the White House has made “The End Run Around The Law” a hallmark of his administration and his party. I’m sick to death of the sneaky little back room tactics he uses to ignore and break the law. He so needs to have his butt in front of an impeachment hearing, and then on a plane to The Hague. I am furious that the Democrats have dismissed the idea out of hand!
/rant
Amanda, I certainly understand why you would use the term “disgusting” coming from your perspective. Remember that we don’t all agree that abortion is anything different than having one’s appendix removed as a medical procedure. I’d be OK with “enjoying the right to have my appendix removed”, but I’d also think the procedure itself was disgusting.
I think I had a point in there somewhere, but it seems to have escaped me.
Personally (and please take this in the spirit in which it is intended), I find the idea of hanging pictures up of the dead body of a guy who has just been executed in one of the most cruel fashions ever devised by humanity rather disgusting. And glorifying that execution is a little odd, you have to admit.
I know your reasons for it, but it’s kinda gross, doncha think?
I’d much rather focus on the things the man said before the execution, than the image of “Jesus on a stick”.
I do agree with you here. I don’t want pictures of crucifixes up. I don’t own a crucifix. For me personally, it’s because Jesus isn’t on the cross anymore. He was resurrected.
I think my broader point was more about the idea that Christianity itself focuses so heavily on the crucifixion, rather than what Jesus had to say.
So much attention is paid to this or that doctrine, that his voice is lost in the noise.
Just as a quick fer instance, what are the major holidays of Christianity in general? Easter, Lent, Christmas, etc.
Where’s the holiday for the sermon on the mount? Where’s the celebration of The Good Samaritan? There’s a big ol’ ritual around communion about eating flesh and drinking blood, but nothing about picking up the whore/adulteress/whatever from the dirt and telling the people about to stone her to piss off.
And why is nobody is throwing the money changers out of the temples? At what point did Jesus own a mansion and a private jet? (He didn’t even own his own damned camel!)
Christianity is so focused on forcing everyone to adhere to its political doctrines about anti-abortion, anti-freedom of basically everything, but when was the last time you saw a story on CNN about a preacher parking his limo to help someone re-build their house?
(Here’s a hint: Never.)
But you may have heard about an eighty billion year old ex-president still banging nails for Habitat for Humanity. You may have heard about that same man doing everything he can to bring peace to the Middle East, and stop the damned killing.
Funny that he’s neither a preacher nor a Republican.
OK, I know I’m wandering far afield here, but I guess I’m like a feather on the wind.
That’s so me.
Oh, the point about President Carter was THAT should be the public face of Christianity, rather than that idiot Robertson and his ilk.
I listeth when I should have cometh or something.
I understood your broader point. It was just easier to reply to that one tidbit. My head hurts!
I agree with you. As a whole, the church is not very good at spreading the message and actions of Christ. We’re working on it though.
Gah, Wordpress is inexplicably refusing to post my comment. I’ll break it into two chunks, so I can figure out where the problem is.
Did you read the next sentence I wrote? I don’t think making abortions illegal is the solution to the problem.
I did. Note the distinction between a “de jure” (e.g. legal) restriction and a “de facto” (e.g. pragmatic) restriction. I was trying to figure out under what circumstances it would make any difference to anyone for the government to pass the abortion buck onto the private sector, and the only one I could come up with was if some women were unable to get an abortion as a result (a “de facto” restriction substituted for a “de jure” restriction). Apologies if I missed an alternative reading of your post.
And I’m sorry, but using the words “legally enjoy” when talking about a “freedom” like abortion is just…disgusting. Honestly.
For clarity’s sake:
“enjoy
v. tr.
1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: ‘enjoys good health’.”
That’s from the American Heritage Dictionary; emphasis mine.
I’m not sure why I should consider it disgusting, though - I’m unable to find any criterion that distinguishes between a really early-term abortion and the death of skin cells when I graze my knee. Annoying, certainly, but… why disgusting? If you can answer without (explicitly or implicitly) invoking God or souls, you’ll have my congratulations.
Why should I have to?
A baby is a baby is a baby. I don’t care if it’s 2 weeks after conception, 6 months after conception, or 6 months after birth.
Where’s the line? When is a baby not a baby? When it’s out of the womb? When it has fingers? When it has a heartbeat?
Why should I have to?
Because, if I understood correctly, you want to enforce your views on other people via the executive arm of government (by restricting the public funding for abortion). Many of those people do not share your particular religious beliefs.
If I misunderstood, please correct me.
Where’s the line?
My view: there is no line, only a spectrum from single-celled organism to functioning human being. The “line” is merely a convenient legal fiction. I fully support use of such a legal construct, but that doesn’t mean I think it must have any concrete biological existence.
And, as best I can tell, it doesn’t have any concrete existence. Let’s say that fertilised cells have souls. OK, then what about identical twins? Which one gets the soul? What about chimaeras - people formed from an early-stage fusion of two fertilised eggs? Do they have two souls? What about siamese twins? I’m not aware of any dividing line that doesn’t break down in these fringe cases.
By the time I want to say something… I find it’s already been said… sigh… I was just gone for 24 hours this time people… not a month.
It doesn’t seem to me that “restricting public funding” equals “enforcing your views on other people.” Public funding is just that: public. It’s me paying for you (not personally) to have someone killed. If that sounds too harsh, flip that argument over and look at your dollars paying to kill Arabs. Anti-war folks (or more specifically anti-Iraq war folks) can gain a sense of what I think Amanda is getting at by looking at it that way. For now, we’re each arguing against paying for something that we detest. Of course the principles involved go way beyond money, but the post is about public funding for abortions, right?
Wow, that sounded like I’m pro-Arab-killing. I’m not.
derifter, I’ve been thinking about your point about paying for something we detest.
It was certainly worth considering, and I thank you for raising it.
What is the difference?
Here’s what I’m thinking so far:
My objection to the war in Iraq is a legal objection. Our country has agreed to abide by international law, and part of that law is that we don’t go around invading other countries without cause.
The international community via the United Nations specifically said “No” and our president invaded Iraq anyway. He also deliberately lied about intelligence to the American Congress and to the people of this country to bolster his support.
So in addition to my moral objection, there is the illegality of the war to consider.
(Please note I have no objection whatsoever to the invasion of Afghanistan. For my money, that’s where the “War on Terror” should be being fought. That’s where the perpetrator of the World Trade Center bombing was operating, that’s where he was being hidden, that’s where he was being supported, and there was no objection from the International Community to that. We had justification for that invasion. Why exactly are we in Iraq again?)
Your objection to public funding of abortion is solely based on your religious view. Our Constitution specifically prohibits making law establishing one religious view over the people.
At the point where your religious view becomes the only basis for imposing a law on me (just as a fer instance), that law is without legal foundation. It is your religious view that a fetus is a human life. That’s fine for you. I (and millions of other people) disagree.
So to extrapolate with a bit of hyperbole to follow your logic, let’s just suppose there’s a very large church of people, let’s say several million people. We’ll call it the Church of the Holy Ovary.
If that church feels that ovaries are sacred because that’s where life comes from, and that church is against a woman having her ovaries removed, should they have the right to tell all women they can’t have hysterectomies? Should they have the right to deny a poor woman public funding for an hysterectomy because they find the practice abhorrent and sacrilegious?
What makes that church’s views different than your church’s view? Conception, I imagine is what would come to mind. But why conception? Why is that special? It’s special to you, but it’s not to them.
OK, so after all that rambling, I suppose the gist of this is that if the country is going to provide medical care for those who can’t afford it for themselves, then it seems it cannot legally deny some medical care to those who need it based on the religious objection of other people.
I disagree. My views on abortion aren’t religious in nature. It’s easy to use Christianity as a justification for the sanctity of life and all of that, but what it boils down to for me is a moral issue. I firmly believe that even if I weren’t a Christian, I’d be against abortion.
“Seriously, it’s a shame that Americans are reduced to this guy who is against everything in which I believe, or that guy who’s against fewer things in which I believe.”
Here’s the solution.
The common argument against voting for a third party is , “You’re wasting your vote.”
So we work out a voting system where each voter can pick at least two (if not three) candidate in order of preference. That way we can have a run-off without having another election. Once we know the top two vote getters, we retabulate the votes by going to the second choices of everyone who picked candidates 3,4, and 5.
Like it?
J. Kaiser
Amanda,
Although it’s impossible for us to ever know the consequences of “what if I was raised…” it’s a moot point.
If your opinion is justified only by your moral position, we’re still at nothing more than a difference of opinion.
Without something other than your opinion, it’s still “Amanda thinks thinks this, Janie disagrees.”
In this country, when there is a difference of opinion, tie goes to freedom.
Think about the Constitution. Think about all the legal twists and turns it takes, and why it takes them.
It’s basic underlying principle is that Americans can do whatever they want, so long as they are not interfering with anyone else’s right to do what they want.
Now I understand that you would counter that an abortion is murder and thus runs contrary to that opinion, but that’s based on your opinion that life begins at conception. Until you make the case that an embryo is a person, it’s nothing more than your opinion. My opinion differs.
How do we draw the line? Is an egg in an ovary a person? I’m going to assume you’ll say “No.” Ok, so why not? Why is the point at which you draw the line of person-hood better than mine? You have to make the case that an embryo is a person before you can impose your belief that an abortion is murder.
I happen to personally draw the line at the point where there is measurable brain activity. That’s my opinion. It seems to me that you certainly couldn’t be a person if you have no brain. But I can’t make that case, so I can’t impose my will on someone else.
If I believe that it’s immoral for a person to live beyond sixteen years old without having had sex, can I impose that belief on you?
What if I believe it’s immoral for a woman to teach a man? Can Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary impose its moral convictions on you for no other reason than their morals?
Do you see where I’m going?
TotalT,
I like where you’re going, and I’d like to explore that idea a little more. Care to share some further thoughts on it?
“I like where you’re going, and I’d like to explore that idea a little more. Care to share some further thoughts on it?”
Not much more unpacking. Third party’s aren’t viable because they can’t get their foot in the door- so to speak. This gives them that opportunity. Even though I am not a liberal, think what might have happened had this been available in the 200 election (and for the conservatives think 1996).
JanieBelle,
You should go back and count how many questions you’ve asked in your last two comments! Of course, none of them are easy so I could probably make a part-time job out of answering them. I’ll just pick a couple that seem like top level.
A couple years ago I would’ve given you a much better argument about why we’re in Iraq, since we didn’t know then that we wouldn’t find the WMD that were supposedly there. Maybe they were there and got shipped to Syria. (It’s not like it was a sneak attack.) Or maybe it was just bad intelligence right from the get-go. (Not Gitmo, that’s different.)
Our military is designed to fight and win wars, not police nations. After the Iraqi forces were defeated would have been a good time to work with neighboring countries to keep the peace, then get the heck out. Our military work was done. I think the pres was acting faithfully on bad intelligence at the time, not lying about it.Since then, my support for the Iraq Plan has been dwindling. I completely agree with you on Afghanistan though, and I’m glad you keep an open mind about it. Too many people think nothing is worth fighting for. I think some things are.
Regarding abortion, what’s your answer to people who are not religious, yet oppose abortion? Incidentally I do oppose it, and I am a Christian, and I’m positive my religious beliefs do color my moral views quite a bit because they’re part of who I am. In fact I’m not sure I could separate the two. But not all who oppose abortion are religious. Are they confused? By the way, I draw the line at conception.
And your Church of the Holy Ovary question, first of all is pretty funny because of the name. Second, they would probably need to convince a few more people of their mission to mandate ovary retention, because although we don’t vote on every single issue in this country, we sorta do by who we vote for. That’s how democracy works. If you could convince me that abortion (or ovary retention, or what have you) is a good idea (not likely), I might just vote for candidates who support those things. And it might become the law of the land. So the battle continues.
totaltransformation,
I don’t think we need three parties, just one tyrant who will rule with an iron fist to make this country exactly what I want.
I disagree. My views on abortion aren’t religious in nature. It’s easy to use Christianity as a justification for the sanctity of life and all of that, but what it boils down to for me is a moral issue. I firmly believe that even if I weren’t a Christian, I’d be against abortion.
If you weren’t a Christian, on what basis would you feel that small clusters of cells should be given approaching the respect given to adult human beings?
I can think of a few possible answers to this question, but they’d mostly be out of character for you so I’m interested to hear what you’ll come up with.
Because this isn’t a small cluster of cells.
Wow. I hadn’t read this thread in a few days. I come back to find that this conversation has managed to run in a giant circle, starting with the question “why is an embyro a person”, ending with “because it’s not a small cluster of cells.”
The “because I said so” argument doesn’t hold water, and is frequently the mantra of the more conservative types. Janie lays out a clear argument, uses fact, opinion and question to substatiate her position. In my internet roamings, I see many liberal types with this M.O., and it generally makes them the victor in conversations such as this. The conservative types tend to pick up their ball and go home once they use the “because I said so line”. Amanda, it’s your blog, so you have to stay, my dear!
I’m really fasinated by this phenomenon. It really helps substatiate my claim that there is no such thing as a moral abosolute.
So to keep this circle going: WHY isn’t it a small cluster of cells??????????????????
Unless you’re laying some kind of trap here, the answer seems obvious. But since you’re asking Amanda and not me, I’ll wait.
I must be missing something though.
Because this isn’t a small cluster of cells.
To second Musicguy: in what way is it more than a small cluster of cells?
I’d additionally note that your previous comments suggested you were also against early abortions, in which case the “baby” quite definitely is a small cluster of cells.
Feel free to answer derifter. It’s not a trap, merely a question that needs an answer other than, “because it is.”
Well let’s lay this out a bit. How pregnant is a woman before she knows she’s pregnant? Generally speaking it’s at least 4 weeks, but usually 8 or more. When the baby is “a cluster of cells” no one knows it’s there, and there’s almost no chance that it’s going to be aborted.
It won’t be aborted until later in the first tri-mester when the baby definitely has fingers and toes forming. When you can see eyes. When you can see that it’s a child.
You do have a point though. I don’t know without a shadow of a doubt what point I would believe that a baby is a baby if it weren’t for my beliefs. I would probably agree that it’s a cluster of cells until visually it begins to take the form of a human. And then when it begins to look like a baby (no matter how small), I would feel that killing it is wrong.
As a Christian, I just can’t do that. I have to believe that it’s a baby from conception because of what God says about humans (that he knew us before He formed us in the womb, that we were fearfully and wonderfully made, that He has a plan).
I can appreciate your personal belief and opinion, ultimately based on your religion.
I’ll never change your mind, and vice versa. The issue, as usual, is when we start to limit the rights of others based on personal religious convictions. Millions of Americans don’t believe the same things you do, and they cannot be forced in any way to believe what you believe. Limiting or disallowing abortions in this country would do just that.
Personally, I’m with janie here- brain waves= baby. Until then, cells with a somewhat distinguishable shape.
When the baby is “a cluster of cells” no one knows it’s there, and there’s almost no chance that it’s going to be aborted.
What about the morning-after pill? That can abort a fertilised egg by preventing it from implanting, IIRC.
And then when it begins to look like a baby (no matter how small), I would feel that killing it is wrong.
So basically it’s a baby when looking at it makes you think “ooh, baby”, right? Kudos on being more honest than most; good luck constructing a legal test for that.
Next question: is there any good reason why someone who doesn’t have that intuitive reaction should agree with this dividing line, or is it primarily a personal stance?
I have to believe that it’s a baby from conception because of what God says about humans (that he knew us before He formed us in the womb, that we were fearfully and wonderfully made, that He has a plan).
If so then God would have a great deal of unnecessary planning to do - between 1/4 and 3/4 of pregnancies spontaneously abort.
Oh good. I’m glad it’s not a trap. I hate traps.
It’s the only “cluster of cells” that, barring outside intervention (ie, abortion) will likely develop its own heartbeat, brainwaves, digestive system and the rest, and eventually become independent and self-aware. I’m not sure which of those, by itself, constitutes “a person”, but the fact that those things are what lie ahead would seem to distinguish the embryo from a kidney, ovary, or appendix.
Would you argue that an embryo is not even a person in the earliest stages of personhood?
I’m very much with lifewish on this one. I’ll not repost what has been said already.
[…] whom will I vote? Let me first tell you for whom I will NOT vote, as I once posted at Amanda’s digs: I will NOT vote for an anti-abortion rights/anti-women’s equality […]