Rudy Giuliani wants to president of the U.S. But he has to become the Republican nominee to even have a chance. The Republican party is rather solidly against abortion. Yet Giuliani says he is pro-choice. Why is this? Why doesn’t he say he is pro-life?
Because he is pro-choice.
While the parties are rather well evenly split on this issue, the Republicans haven’t chased the pro-choicers out of our party quite to the extent the Democrats have chased the pro-lifers out of theirs.
I don’t care what he believes. I’m asking why he doesn’t SAY he is pro-life to appease pro-life Republicans to get the nomination. Like he is really for gun control, but he SAYS he’s not for gun control, because you have to say that to be a Republican presidential nominee.
Nobody would believe him. He has a long track record on this front.
He has, sort of. He’s stated that if he is elected, he will strongarm the judiciary branch with conservative judges. Savvy move, I think. It ensures that a Guiliani presidency will swing the Supreme Court even further to the right. The question is whether pro-life Republicans are will take the carrot. Wanna make a wager? 
- Honesty
And he’s said he “hates” abortion.
Because people would know he’s lying?
And the NRA has had a stranglehold on politicians of both parties longer than the right-to-life crowd has existed. As someone from a law-&-order, non-gun-owning, evangelical conservative right-to-life background, I grew up annoyed by this.
And he’s not as slick or as religious as Mitt Romney, who conveniently switched sides in 2002, and has actually convinced many Republicans that his change of heart is a sincere one.
But people already know that. People know that candidates say what is to their advantage, rather than what they believe or what is true. So saying what is to your best advantage is the only way to go. Yet Giuliani expouses a position that is sure to cost him. As an experienced politician, it seems strange that he is not telling his target audience what they want to hear.
Well, they’re already pretty pissed about him rooting for the Red Sox-how do you think people would react to him lying about being pro-life?
He may also be gambling that it will help him in the general election more than it will hurt him in the primaries. I think that’s what Hillary is doing to a large extent (not on abortion, but on other issues). Remember, most Americans are pro-choice, even if they want there to be more restrictions on abortion than there currently are.
I think this is only a secondary reason, though, and that primarily it would just be too hard to pull off.
Is that true? Do you have data to support it? Harry Reid is pro-life, and he’s the Majority leader of the Senate. Of course, there’s also Arlan Specter, the pro-choice Republican Senator who is pretty highly ranked in that party.
At any rate, I’d like to see that statement backed up with more than just your say-so. And I’m not necessarily saying I think you’re wrong, just that I’m not sure.
Do you have a cite for that? IIRC, that is only the case when you count people who want legal abortion ONLY in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life. Those people are counted as “pro-choice” in some surveys.
If Guiliani were to win the GOP nomination, you would see a major paradigm shift in US politics. You would see a viable third party out there to get around 20 percent of the vote, the DEMS would dominate for a while and the GOP would go downhill fast.
Perhaps he doesn’t want to be misleading. I hear this occasionally happens with politicians.
Who doesn’t?
Why would anyone not count them as “pro-choice”, at least those in the first two categories?
AFAICT, the whole point of the “pro-life” position is to defend the right to life of all embryos/fetuses as fully human persons from the moment of conception. Surely a “pro-life” advocate would not claim that embryos conceived as a result of rape or incest are less fully human or less entitled to life than other “pre-born persons”?
If they’re not, then ISTM that supporting a woman’s right to an abortion in case of pregnancy resulting from incest or rape is indeed a “pro-choice” rather than a “pro-life” position. (The case of abortion to save the mother’s life is more of a gray area; I can see how even a thoroughgoing “pro-life” advocate would still be willing to choose to save the mother’s life rather than the fetus’s, given that one or the other of them absolutely had to be sacrificed.)
Well, so do a lot of those who are pro-choice. I personally want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. However, that’s MY feelings-I think everyone should have to make that decision on their own.
I don’t want to hijack the thread, so you can start another one if you like. My position is that I only would like to see legal abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.
I see that as “pro-life” and it is certainly not the same as someone who wants abortion to be legal for any reason…
And then all you’d get would be women claiming they were raped.
The thing is, there isn’t this huge gulf between most pro-lifers & most pro-choicers. One who was a NARAL supporter before 1970 could be more “pro-life” than the law after 1973 without changing his position.
Which is why I hate the yelling over abortion. There’s just not that much difference between the sides.
Also, what Guinastasia said. I’m pro-choice, if nothing else, to cut down on false rape accusations. I have no illusions that I can save unwanted foetuses from abortion.
Good point. The Democrats have chased pro-lifer Harry Reid all the way to Majority Leader of the US Senate. :rolleyes:
IMHO he switched to pro-choice leanings in order to get elected in Mass. It’s much more likely that his pro-life stance is, and always has been, his true opinion on the matter.