Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka
Monday, April 02, 2007
A Morally Reprehensible View...
...or just outright lying.
That is the only two ways of explaining Rudy Giuliani's view on abortion. It's the classic "I'm personally opposed to it, but I shouldn't force my view on others. Thus I support a woman's right to choose" John Kerry voiced the same view in 2004.
The only way you can get away with a view like that is if you are totally passive on the abortion issue. You don't campaign in favor of abortion. You don't give speeches to NARAL and you don't call for government funding for abortion. You stay silent on the issue as much as possible.
But that's not what Giuliani has done in the past. He's been a very strong supporter of abortion rights. He's actively campaigned on the pro-choice side of the issue. I'm sorry, but that is just morally reprehensible.
The other possibility is that Giuliani is just lying, that he isn't personally opposed to abortion. This actually does make a bit more sense to me. Think about it: what other issue in contemporary American politics would someone NOT want to impose his viewpoint on everyone else? Can you imagine a politician saying, "I'm personally in favor of gun-control but I don't want to force my view on others"? How about "I'm personally in favor of stronger narcotics laws but I don't want to force my views on others?" Or my personal favorite: "I'm personally in favor of more immigration, but I don't want to force my view on others?"
That is the only two ways of explaining Rudy Giuliani's view on abortion. It's the classic "I'm personally opposed to it, but I shouldn't force my view on others. Thus I support a woman's right to choose" John Kerry voiced the same view in 2004.
The only way you can get away with a view like that is if you are totally passive on the abortion issue. You don't campaign in favor of abortion. You don't give speeches to NARAL and you don't call for government funding for abortion. You stay silent on the issue as much as possible.
But that's not what Giuliani has done in the past. He's been a very strong supporter of abortion rights. He's actively campaigned on the pro-choice side of the issue. I'm sorry, but that is just morally reprehensible.
The other possibility is that Giuliani is just lying, that he isn't personally opposed to abortion. This actually does make a bit more sense to me. Think about it: what other issue in contemporary American politics would someone NOT want to impose his viewpoint on everyone else? Can you imagine a politician saying, "I'm personally in favor of gun-control but I don't want to force my view on others"? How about "I'm personally in favor of stronger narcotics laws but I don't want to force my views on others?" Or my personal favorite: "I'm personally in favor of more immigration, but I don't want to force my view on others?"
posted by LWY, 9:39 PM
3 Comments:
I'm personally opposed to a lot of things that I don't think should be forbidden by law: adultery, being mean or rude, spitting in public, smoking crack, telling your kids they'll go to hell for masturbating, spanking children, buying your kid a $50,000 car, etc.
Now I agree that if one personally believes abortion is murder, it makes no sense to not want to impose that view on others. But if one simply thinks it's wrong in most circumstances (like Orthodox Jews, for example) it's wholly rational to not want to impose your view on the whole country (or state) via the government.
I thought Republicans were supposed to be anti-authoritarian? I guess that was just in the good old days.
Now I agree that if one personally believes abortion is murder, it makes no sense to not want to impose that view on others. But if one simply thinks it's wrong in most circumstances (like Orthodox Jews, for example) it's wholly rational to not want to impose your view on the whole country (or state) via the government.
I thought Republicans were supposed to be anti-authoritarian? I guess that was just in the good old days.
Most politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are not libertarians. They are constantly trying to impose their viewpoint on society.
I thought Republicans were supposed to be anti-authoritarian? I guess that was just in the good old days.
I know of no political party, at any point in US history that did not want to force their views on morality on everyone else.
I thought Republicans were supposed to be anti-authoritarian? I guess that was just in the good old days.
I know of no political party, at any point in US history that did not want to force their views on morality on everyone else.
Most politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are not libertarians. They are constantly trying to impose their viewpoint on society.
I agree, unfortunately. However, most politicians are libertarian on at least some issues, Democrats tending to be social libertarians except for affirmative action and stuff and Republicans used to at least talk like fiscal libertarians. Giuliani appears to be a social libertarian, so I don't see where his support of legal abortion doesn't fit in. (He's a hard authoritarian on law-and-order issues, which is why I can't support him, but that's for another day.)
I agree, unfortunately. However, most politicians are libertarian on at least some issues, Democrats tending to be social libertarians except for affirmative action and stuff and Republicans used to at least talk like fiscal libertarians. Giuliani appears to be a social libertarian, so I don't see where his support of legal abortion doesn't fit in. (He's a hard authoritarian on law-and-order issues, which is why I can't support him, but that's for another day.)
