Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion—except when the life of the mother is at stake.
http://www.yournextpresident.net/thefacts.php
Catholic teaching has long condemned abortion, and in recent decades has spoken in defense of the ethical treatment of human embryos as technologies advance. Taking into account considerable scientific evidence and theological considerations, Catholic teaching holds that human life begins at conception.
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=25867
2007-11-14 23:42:21 · 31 answers · asked by Naturescent 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There are others running for President who do not support abortion. The problem is not whether he could be effectual in ending abortion, but rather his stance on abortion - which he supports.
http://www.ehd.org/science_imagegal_4.php
From 6 weeks after conception, they respond to touch.
From 7-8 weeks after conception, the nerves are formed and the baby can feel pain. They have bones, fingers and toes, eyelids, a complex brain, functioning kidneys, skin and hair.
There is never a need for partial birth abortion to save a mother's life. Doctors can perform c-sections. If the baby's head is enlarged, a shunt can usually be placed in the baby's head to allow the baby to grow up normal. I personally know people who have experienced this and those children have had children.
Abortion is not birth control. It is ending a life.
2007-11-15 00:24:39 · update #1
This is not about whether or not you believe as Catholics believe, but that Giuliani claims to be Catholic and is not supporting the Catholic beliefs.
This is not about whether he could end abortion, but his stance on abortion. He supports abortion.
2007-11-15 00:29:51 · update #2
Beautiful images of a baby developing.
http://standupgirl.com/web/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=29
2007-11-15 00:54:15 · update #3
Rudy, you can't be Catholic and support abortion at the same time.
2007-11-15 01:57:40 · answer #1 · answered by Danny H 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Do you certainly have faith that maximum folk of those applicants on any of those components particularly have faith in an astounding writer? aside from Mike Huckabee, who's marketing campaign speeches are weaker than maximum, i do no longer think any of those applicants quite have faith. they are all prosperous adult males of ability and effect; they have long previous directly to greater guidance and often at Ivy League colleges, that are no longer precisely on the leading edge of the creationism debate. i discover this to be an outstanding element through fact i'm an Atheist, yet I do discover it disgusting that ever because Pat Robertson got here on the brink of having the nomination till now while, all people is making an attempt to court docket the evangelical vote via claiming to be die difficult non secular followers.
2016-10-02 10:10:59 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
gyilani is not a practicing Catholic - just as kerry was not. anyone can "claim" to be a Christian but it's how they live their lives that dictates the reality of their claim. i know that's only something the Catholic believe becuase other denominations all bash and put us down becuase we understand the concept of DOING (action) as Christ taught and told us over and over. Rudy is going publically against the Church so at this time, he is not a practicing Catholic.
2007-11-15 03:10:28 · answer #3 · answered by Marysia 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Rudy also is against pedophilia, yet remains Catholic.
He is obviously a progressive thinker that is able to separate religious propaganda for what it is.
How can an organization support/condone through money and diversion the rape of small children, yet continue to preach about the "evils" of birth control, and the result of no birth control, abortion?
It floors me that anyone can continue to support such an organization.
Rudy is the most honest guy/girl running. Instead of paying lip service to ideals he doesn't agree with, he tells the truth of his feelings. Unlike many of his running mates.
If the Republicans truly want to have any hope of staying in office, they have to win over Democrats. Continuing to promote the American Puritan Ethic does not win anyone over. Smart man to buck the divisive, hard-line personal choice/responsibility issues.
Our founding fathers were great men with huge vision.
It is a shame that the vision has been perverted into partisan politics on unconstitutional issues.
2007-11-15 00:05:13 · answer #4 · answered by Gem 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
So if life begins at conception don't you find it a tad curious that the Catholic church condems both Abortion AND contraception ?
Could be they want millions of little catholics bounding around - no matter their conditions.
No marriage for priests either, catholic dogma it seems prefers priests molesting kids instead. That cover up goes as far as the Pope his holy self.
Stuff the Catholic church.
2007-11-15 00:01:56 · answer #5 · answered by Pattythepunk 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I suppose Mr. Giuliani is doing what many of us are tempted to do from time to time - wanting to have it both ways.
"I want to be a good spouse, but I also don't want to clean and take out the trash all the time."
"I want to be an honest employee, but I also want a piece of that $5,000 cash refund that belongs to my company."
"I want to be a devoted son/daughter, but I don't want to spend time visiting Mom in that depressing nursing home."
"I want the Democratic Presidential nomination (support for abortion is a MUST for that), but I don't want to face not being known as a Catholic."
People - all of us - face these kinds of tough choices everyday. And they know it when somebody else is stepping up and doing what it takes to "walk the walk as well as talk the talk". And people can also spot it when someone is copping out. Spotting it is not that hard. Living up to what we say we want to be - that's the hard part!
2007-11-15 00:15:17 · answer #6 · answered by Catherine V. 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Giuliani is as much a Catholic as he's from Brooklyn. He is and always will be what ever the occasion seems to call for or what ever will put him in front of a camera.
2007-11-14 23:51:12 · answer #7 · answered by Bob H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Is being non-Catholic someone that supports abortion, or someone that has had an abortion? Is Catholicism a type of thought police too?
2007-11-15 00:08:19 · answer #8 · answered by I'm an Atheist 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
As a politician he is supposed to put aside his personal views and decide based on what people want or need. Since it is not illegal to perform abortion, he is well within his rights as a politician to not let the catholic church tell him how to do his job.
2007-11-14 23:55:45 · answer #9 · answered by Keltasia 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You've mixed up a couple of issues here, so I'm going to sort them out and deal with them separately. These issues are:
---how can a Catholic (or presumably anyone who calls oneself "pro-life") vote pro choice
---"partial birth" abortion
---abortion as birth control
first off, abortion as birth control. Whether it ends a life or not, abortion is most certainly birth control; it prevents a fetus from being born. I understand that you're advocating a point of view here, but your statement is inaccurate. If you intend to be credible, you must speak factually. If you attempt to sway people with emotobabble then you are merely a huckster.
Secondly, the issue of partial birth abortion. You claim that partial birth abortion is never necessary to save the life fo the woman. You say that she can opt for a c-section instead. Well, some number of c-sections are fatal for women. There has never been a recorded case where an intact dilation and extraction has resulted in maternal mortality, so c-sections are not entirely safe from the woman's point of view, whereas intact dilations and extractions are. There may be legitimate, medical reasons for opting not to have a c-section, so again, your statement is factually incorrect. Furthermore the term "partial birth abortion" itself is emotobabble. There is a medical procedure, and it is called an "intact dilation and extraction." Again, if you wish to be credible, please use facts instead of emotobabble.
Now for the primary issue, how can Giuliani, or anyone that matter who calls him or herself "pro-life" support the continued legal status of abortion? The answer to that is simple. Religious morals and secular laws are not, cannot be, and should not try to be the same thing. Even Jesus understood the concept of separation of church and state when he said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's."
Although they are few and far between, I know of devout Christians who oppose morality-based laws, because they consider such laws the very height of human arrogance. That is to say, they put into man's hands a power that rightfully belongs to God. If you read Romans 12:19-21, it says that "vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord." By giving the government the power to punish people for morals violations you are actually usurping God's authority.
This view is supported by Jesus's intervention of the stoning of the prostitute. Human law clearly permitted the woman to be stoned to death, yet Jesus intervened to stop the stoning. Why? Because he knew that the power to inflict punishment for transgressions of God's law does not belong in the hands of men.
Furthermore, at no time in the Gospels does Jesus ever cooperate with secular or temporal government to advance his moral agenda. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Jesus constantly spoke truth to human power, and those human powers did not like his words, so they killed him. Show me where, in the Gospels, Jesus travelled to Rome to lobby either the Emperor or the Roman Senate to criminalize ANYTHING, and I might start listening to the christian conservatives who want to enact their version of their bible into secular law.
The simple fact is, Jesus didn't rely upon secular law to spread his message or turn people away from sin, so really, you have no reason to do so either if you truly call yourself a Christian. Jesus said if you had sufficient faith, you could do everything he did. If you're resorting to force, instead of faith, you're not much of a Christian.
Finally, opposing the criminalization of abortion is not the same thing as supporting abortion. I oppose using drugs, drinking, and smoking, and yet, I believe all these things should be legal. Why? Because it does more harm to our society to criminalize drugs, booze and smoking than those things do themselves. There are reasons to oppose the criminalization of abortion, even for those who consider themvselves "pro-life." Two cases that come to mind are Melissa Rowland and Angela Carder. Doctors are not perfect and medicine is not an exact science, contrary to what everyone wants to believe, and the law is definitely not an appropriate tool for making medical decisions.
So be careful in how you characterize those who oppose the criminalization of abortion. They may be much more in line with what Jesus said than the evangelical conservatives are.
2007-11-15 03:22:46 · answer #10 · answered by Libertarian T 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋