People on both sides of the abortion debate are frustrated with Rudy Giuliani (Giuliani vexes audiences with abortion views). On one hand, he says he thinks abortion is wrong, but on the other hand, he thinks it should remain legal. On still a third hand, he’d like to appoint the kind of judges that would likely overturn Roe vs. Wade. (Why can’t we find– as Harry Truman once said– a one-handed politician?)
Let’s CrossExamine Giuliani’s position(s):
- Saying that you are “personally opposed” to abortion but think a woman has a “right to choose” tries to carve out a third alternative that does not and can not exist. Either the unborn child is a human being or it is not. There is no third alternative. (BTW, this is a fundamental law of logic called the law of the excluded middle.)
- Mr. Giuliani is essentially saying that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” as President Clinton once said. But that’s like saying that slavery should be “safe, legal and rare.” If abortion takes the life of an innocent human being, then why should it be legal? And if it doesn’t take the life of an innocent human being, then why should it be rare?
- Giuliani’s position is a logical mess because relativism is false– personal beliefs don’t change the nature of the baby. A women’s choice (or anyone’s choice for that matter) does not change the status of an unborn child. Unborn children are human beings regardless of what some people think of them, just like Jews are human beings regardless of what Hitler thought about them (for the scientific evidence regarding the humanity of the unborn see our book Legislating Morality Chapter 10).
Free CrossExamined.org Resource
Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.