Posted on 11/22/2011 11:40:03 AM PST by marty60
I’m sorry. First, if you watch the video, you will see that Cain wasn’t sure what he was answering, or why. The interviewer, trying to avoid using certain words, muddied up the question by using the term “raise up” instead of “give birth to” or “abort” — if you listen to interviews about this subject, the reporters rarely use words that suggest you are supposed to kill the child, because people react negatively to that concept. SO they often phrase the question to sound like it’s about the mother.
Cain later explained what he meant, and it had nothing to do with adoption. He didn’t take the “raise up” to mean adoption. He saw that Piers had tried to make it personal, but not that it was a change in subject. Cain gave a different reason for why he answered the way he did; eventually he said he’d make abortion illegal, but that he couldn’t keep a family from deciding to break the law and abort the child anyway.
It was clearly not about adoption. His answer never made sense in those terms. Nobody has ever argued that we would force women to RAISE their children. Cain said his answer wasn’t what most people would say — clearly since virtually ALL people would say a woman doesn’t have to raise a kid, if his answer was about adoption it wouldn’t make sense for him to say it wasn’t a normal answer.
Further, there’s no controversy about that, and nobody in the pro-life movement would ever trivially answer that question. If a pro-life person was actually asked “so you would make a woman RAISE a child conceived by rape or incest”, the universal answer is “what are you talking about — the abortion issue is NOT about forcing a woman to raise a child; we strongly support adoption as a viable alternative for those women who are pregnant but decide they do not want to raise their child”.
Since Cain never even MENTIONED the word adoption, it was clear he was never talking about it. That was just an excuse that some Cain supporters floated because they couldn’t figure out why Cain answered the way he did. But once Cain explained his answer, it made no sense for his supporters to continue to pretend he was talking about adoption — he was talking about families breaking the law (if you believe Cain).
It's funny how "small government conservatives" cry the loudest for the federal government to regulate their personal relationships. Conservative Catholics, for instance, would RIOT if they had to apply for a license to receive the sacrament of Communion. However, they have no problem getting a license for the sacrament of Marriage.
Ron Paul is solidly pro-life. He rightfully understands this is a state issue. Honestly, can you imagine what a clusterf**k of a mess it would be to have a law like this at the federal level? Before all was said and done, there'd be limits on how many kids you could have and the birth control industry would become even more subsidized than it is now. This is an issue much better left to a more local legislature.
The only one of the three that has actually said he is against it is Paul. IIRC Cain and Romney are for the ban.
I’ve always thought G&L’s want so bad to be like “regular” folk. That I have never understood. If you want to live that lifestyle then live it. Marriage is a contract.
Call a Lawyer. Not a Minister. The marriage Contract between Man and women is based on belief and faith.
Anyway there are plenty of Ministers that will marry G & L.
Oh that’s right, they want all of the GOV and Workplace BENES. Nevermind.
Keep it a state issue, please!
This has always been an issue for Congress to fix, and they could do it with a simple majority vote.
End of story.
The problem is, of course, that the Congress is full of a bunch of lily-livered, chicken-$hit cowards.
Easily explained: the Family Leader isn't even very smart.
*Sigh*.
This was dealt with when it first came up.
“you will see that Cain wasn’t sure what he was answering, or why. The interviewer, trying to avoid using certain words, muddied up the question by using the term “raise up” instead of “give birth to” or “abort”
That’s because his question concerned forcing a child to be raised by their mother. It’s standard boilerplate prochoice nonsense that argues that a woman should have access to abortion in the case where a woman has been raped so that she won’t have to take care of a baby who reminds her of her rapist.
“he said he’d make abortion illegal, but that he couldn’t keep a family from deciding to break the law and abort the child anyway.”
So how does that make him prochoice? People break laws all the time, and they would break this one too. The point is to discourage them and protect the unborn rather then funnelling government assistance to them to kill their baby.
“Since Cain never even MENTIONED the word adoption, it was clear he was never talking about it.”
Gosh. Why is it you are so worried about Herman Cain that you have to lie about him to get what you want?
I am sympathetic to this argument, however, this would be no different than slave states and free states back in the day.
You cannot have a child be a child in one state, and be a lump of tissue in another, just as you cannot have a slave in one state and free in another.
Yes, there are legitimate things that can be decided by the states, but personhood is not one of them.
The problem with the ‘states right’ solution, is that you are defending a lie, that the child is a child based on where he is born, and that this status changes based on state lines.
Complete, total, and unworkable nonsense. Either the child is a child or it isn’t. If she is, then state lines won’t change, this and abortion should be banned throughout the nation.
As for the argument that if we change this, gay marriage will be changed, the federal government has the authority to regulate marriage to the common law definition. It’s why, fr’nstance that Utah could not enter with polygamy. Reynolds argues two things:
1, common law has defined marriage.
2, the federal government, and not states have the duty to enforce the common law provision. They can no more revise what the common law requires of marriage than they can change habeaus corpus.
I never said he was pro-choice. This isn’t about Herman Cain, it’s about you making up what he said instead of believing him.
BTW, I’ve been in the pro-life movement my entire life, and nobody ever has an argument over a woman being forced to RAISE the child from a rape. NOBODY has ever argued that a woman can’t give up any child for adoption. That has NEVER been an issue ANYWHERE in the pro-life fight.
The argument is about the woman having to carry the baby to term, while being reminded of the rape, and then having to live her life knowing that her child from the rape is out there.
Cain NEVER mentioned the word “adoption”, either in the interview, or later when he was explaining the interview. He was asked exactly what he was saying, and he told us exactly what he meant.
What I am trying to explain, to those reading this as much as you, is that the question wasn’t about adoption, Cain didn’t THINK it was about adoption, Cain did not ANSWER relative to adoption, Cain’s answer would make NO SENSE if it was about adoption, and Cain actually EXPLAINED what his answer meant, and it wasn’t about adoption.
So you would do well to stop speculating that Cain was talking about adoption. He wasn’t, he said he wasn’t, and I don’t understand why someone who supports Cain thinks he knows better than Cain what Cain meant.
“Cain NEVER mentioned the word “adoption”, either in the interview, or later when he was explaining the interview. He was asked exactly what he was saying, and he told us exactly what he meant.”
And he said that he was explaining that he was referring to adoption.
“What I am trying to explain, to those reading this as much as you, is that the question wasn’t about adoption, Cain didn’t THINK it was about adoption, Cain did not ANSWER relative to adoption, Cain’s answer would make NO SENSE if it was about adoption, and Cain actually EXPLAINED what his answer meant, and it wasn’t about adoption.”
The question makes perfect sense, as I’ve already explained it, and how Cain already explained it.
“The argument is about the woman having to carry the baby to term, while being reminded of the rape, and then having to live her life knowing that her child from the rape is out there.”
Then you don’t have much experience with the prolife movement. You really don’t, and are just out of touch Charles. The whole purpose of the question was to brand Cain with the argument that ‘you are forcing women who are raped to raise their children’.
And it’s folks like you which is why they keep asking these questions. Because it’s effective at doing their primary job, ripping into prolife folks.
Great job, Charles. I pity whichever prolife organization you work with, because you are doing them a grave disservice.
Excuse me? Excuse me? We are not even sure if mr Cain even said something uncomfortable but we know newt was screwing Callista for years, while he was holding public office, while he was married to a different woman!!
You should probably back up a couple of steps. Your assumptions have made several leaps of logic that do not apply here.
Yes, if Roe v. Wade was finally vacated, some states would no doubt be in favor of abortion, and some would not, but that is hardly the same thing as the slavery issue was in the 19th century.
Thanks for attacking Iowa.
Most people around here seem to want to attack Texas.
You gotta love the Cain supporters. They really love their guy and I don’t care what you say, they just love him more.
Newt does not inspire the same kind of passion. People like him because he’s smart, has a million good ideas (and a million bad ones - but we won’t go there) and they love the idea of him debating Obama.
Plus, as their original preferences failed, they had to turn somewhere.
I think Perry is a good place for the disaffected to turn. People should definitely reconsider him. He’s not the guy his detractors want you to think he is.
For example, he fought hard his last stint in Texas for three things the liberals hate with a passion.
Those were: Abolish sanctuary cities.
Require viewing of a sonogram before an abortion.
and
Pass tort reform to save doctors and businesses from crushing and frivolous lawsuits in which only the shady lawyers profit.
I like those things.
Cain’s stand against abortion is interesting. He’s against it with no exceptions. However, when presented with a real life scenario about what to do about a baby born after a rape, he got fuzzy and said it would be a family decision.
Actually his no prisoners stand is a detriment. Rick Perry is sterling on pro-life but he grants the usual 3 exceptions, rape, incest and mother’s health.
I’ll tell you why this is better.
There was an election recently in Mississippi for a bill they called the Personhood bill. It stated that every embryo was a Person and could not be killed under any circumstances.
The bill, which was expected to pass because of the strong pro-life feeling of the majority, failed and failed horribly. It was too strong. To be able to pass a pro-life bill, you need the exceptions or people won’t buy it.
Frankly I don’t understand the Newt thing. It makes NO sense.
Anyone that knows his history, knows he’s hardly a family values guy.
It is the least a good Minnesotan can do.
He didn't. Go ahead, post the link to where he did. Prove me wrong.
Here is an article where Cain explained his answers to Piers Morgan:
BTW, if you search "Herman Cain on adoption", you'll again see how wrong you are about his comments being about "adoption". He hasn't really talked about adoption. He never thought Piers was talking about adoption. You should really stop claiming otherwise, or else provide a link to where you think he said that.
The whole purpose of the question was to brand Cain with the argument that ‘you are forcing women who are raped to raise their children’.
I'm glad you are a mind-reader. That isn't an issue that comes up in the pro-life argument. Search "women forced to raise children", and you will see that this isn't an issue of any import anywhere. No rational person thinks anybody is going to force women to raise children. There are no laws which would ever do that, no proposals for any such laws, no statements that could be misconstrued to lead to such laws.
Again, Cain said something nonsensical. His supporters, in order to try to make sense out of his statement, made up a passable excuse that he was talking about adoption, even though that excuse didn't fit what he said.
Then Cain came out and explained what he meant, and it had nothing to do with adoption, but here you still are pushing this disproven hypothesis. Why can't you accept what Cain actually said?
Now, let's go into your alternative universe where Piers would be stupid enough to ask the question "would you force a woman who was raped to keep the child and raise it as her own?"
The answer to that question would be: "No. Every state in the union has safe haven laws which allow women to give up their children, for any reason, without conditions. Nobody wants to change those laws."
The answer Cain gave would be the WRONG answer for that question. Which is part of the point I'm trying to make -- his answer wasn't about adoption, because it was the WRONG answer if he thought that was the question. Which he didn't, as I've shown by an actual quote from Cain about what he MEANT.
” That isn’t an issue that comes up in the pro-life argument.”
Yes, it is. I know it because I’ve had the exact same question asked of me in my prolife work. I know this from experience out at the front, not ‘google searches’. You’re a poseur, and I’m glad to have gotten THAT out of the way.
Choicers love gotcha questions and this is one of their favourite. Why are you doing their work for them, Charles?
I don’t like Paul, but you don’t see me hammering at him incessantly.
“Then Cain came out and explained what he meant, and it had nothing to do with adoption”
It had EVERYTHING to do with adoption, which is what he SAID.
“here you still are pushing this disproven hypothesis.”
Because it’s what the man said. Sorry. I’m not sure why you are pushing a discredited ‘scandal’, other than to smear Cain. Why do you hate him so much?
Look, you want to be a prolifer, go out and protest a clinic. You’ll see what the choicers fling in your face. I guaran damn tee that you won’t becase that’s not how you roll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.