For example, America's mayor is in the habit of explaining he "personally" thinks abortion is bad -- he says he hates it and that it is "morally wrong." Even though he personally opposes abortion, he does not think it should be legally restricted. Indeed, he thinks it's a woman's "right" to have an abortion.
What makes abortion hateful in Mr. Giuliani's mind? Why is it morally wrong? If it is simply a medical procedure in which a "mass" is removed from a woman's womb, what's so bad about that? Mr. Giuliani is certainly suggesting, by saying he "hates" this procedure, that he thinks abortion is more than a typical medical procedure. The fact he says he is personally against it and feels it is morally wrong suggests he knows abortion ends a human life. Why else would he be against it? But, if Mr. Giuliani truly believes innocent life is destroyed by abortion, it is odd he feels there is nothing the government should do about it or that he would call such killing a "woman's right." A right to kill innocent life? Isn't protecting innocent life a primary responsibility of the government?
These are difficult questions that Mr. Giuliani has rarely been forced to confront.
source
Part of the problem is the way the question is framed. The question is made to be about abortion, not about fetal rights.
Someone should ask Giuliani: what is your position on the rights of unborn children?
That would make his stance extremely clear.
What the Republican Party should be doing is making fetal rights part of its platform.
The issue isn't about abortion anymore. To call pro-lifers "anti-abortion" is a misnomer, because it's not just about an operation, it's about acknowledging the equality and humanity of the unborn child, and giving him the legal protection he deserves.
I hope my American readers take this to heart and start talking about "unborn rights" and not just "pro-life" issues.
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
