Posted on 10/30/2011 1:25:41 PM PDT by Steelfish
Cain Says He Opposes Abortion Without Exceptions SHANNON McCAFFREY
— Republican Herman Cain on Sunday said he opposes abortion even in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake, contradicting previous statements in which he favored some exceptions.
The tough stand that Cain staked out during an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" comes as he tries to clear up his position on an issue closely watched by social conservative and evangelical voters, who are among his strongest supporters.
In a 1998 interview with Nation's Restaurant News, the former pizza executive described himself as "pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing."
In a recent interview with CNN, he said the government should not tell women what to do in cases of rape and incest. Afterward, his campaign issued a statement saying he was "100 percent pro-life." It did not specifically mention whether he supported any exceptions.
The no-exception position is considered the most rigid in the anti-abortion community. Even some who oppose abortion support exceptions in extreme circumstances such as when the mother's life is at risk. Cain told CBS he's "pro-life from conception, period." Asked whether that includes instances of rape, incest and life of the mother, Cain said, "Correct. That's my position."
He also endorsed a controversial theory linking abortion to racial genocide. Cain said Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eradicate minorities by putting birth control clinics in their neighborhoods, a charge that the group denies.
Cain said 75 percent of the organization's abortion facilities were built in black communities.
"In Margaret Sanger's own words, she didn't use the word genocide, but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born," Cain said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
WHY DO OUR GUYS BOTHER TO GO ON LIBTARD MEDIA?????
So how much do you raise taxes to hire the tens of thousands of additional medical examiners and homicide detectives to investigate all 500,000 or so miscarriages a year?
Miscarriage is for all practical purposes INFINITELY more common than the murder or accidental death of children.
My sister had a miscarriage and was emotionally devastated. This is WITHOUT being questioned by homicide detectives to make sure it wasn't some sort of surreptitious abortion.
You do understand that your position (and Cain's position, if it is indeed his actual position) is political suicide? Hope you enjoy four more years of Obama.
“Life of the mother”
The fact is, this is an unsolvable problem. There will be some who abuse the exception with suicide threat, etc. But as long as there exists situations where a mother’s life and a baby’s life are directly as odds, you can’t make a law that the baby’s life always takes precidence. I don’t see that as PRO-LIFE when one life is traded for another.
That being said, I don’t worry too much about this because I don’t think the mother’s life exception will ever be on the table.
“Why are the babies in that car seat more valuable to you than a baby in the womb?”
Why is a grown women’s life less valuable to you than a baby in her womb?
Ok, here’s a thought experiment
Through some circumstance you are FORCED to make a decision between the deaths of two 4-cell embryos, and the death of One 10 year old child? (BTW, if no decision is made, all three die.)
Which do you choose?
I like Cain, but all he needs to say is he supports constitutional Judges and will appoint them to the federal courts and deny federal funding for Abortion.
No President; not Reagan Not GW Bush; has stopped abortion - period.
“Why is a grown women’s life less valuable to you than a baby in her womb?”
Both lives have equal value. It is wrong to choose one life over another. God makes those decisions, not us.
You are the one saying that one life has less value than the other. You present the idea that we should make that decision instead of God.
I can agree with you, but I’m still wondering how the doctors will put this into practice, for instance in the case of a tubal pregnacy. If both lives are equal value, do the doctors just let them both die, or is acceptable in that case to take out the baby who will die anyway? I assume in the case of cancer you think the women should just forgo cancer treatment, and put it in God’s hands? Not disagreeing, just wondering how these cases are handled for those who disagree with mother’s life exception.
If the mother’s life is in danger, it’s not an issue of abortion.
It’s an issue of saving a life, and that is best handled between the doctor and patient. There is no one-size fits all for those RARE situations.
This nation aborts millions annually, and all the left want to focus on is the .0001 % of cases where the mother’s life is at risk.
Spin it all you want but that's 3 strikes.
“It’s an issue of saving a life, and that is best handled between the doctor and patient. There is no one-size fits all for those RARE situations.”
Agree totally. But as long as those .0001% cases are grouped equally with the other two ‘optional’ cases (ie. rape/incest), it makes independents nervous.
Done with this thread now.
But when the practical implication of that is recognized - that under that rubric a four cell embryo is EXACTLY as much as a person as a ten year old girl, with all of the same rights, it's obvious that nobody REALLY believes that (and it's a position that is utterly unsellable to the electorate.)
I'll give you an even easier thought experiment - there's a box of 10,000 frozen embryos in front of you, and a 10 year old girl. If you don't choose which one lives, ALL are killed. If you choose, either the box of embryos, or the girl is shot with a 12-guage shotgun.
You're choosing to save the 10,000 embryos? Seriously?
Interesting example!
But this is simply an unsolvable problem. Those who feel an embryo are exactly equal to a grown person feel very passonate about that position. There’s no changing of minds on any side. I accept that. As long as our representatives protect us from ourselves...
It’s not the life of the mother. It’s the lifestyle of the mother.
Not quite true! Here are some awesome examples of people making a "180" change in their thinking about abortion! -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
In a Ectopic pregnancy, the doctor performing the procedure is not killing the child. It is a necessary medical procedure to save the mother. That is not considered the willful taking of a life, and that is the position of the Catholic Church, which does not believe in abortion under any circumstance.
Abortion is always evil - it intends to directly kill a child. It is never allowed even to save the life of the mother. The Church clearly teaches that “One may never do evil so that good may result from it” (Catechism, 1789).
However, in the case you describe, the mother’s malfunctioning organ (fallopian tube, or a portion of it), may be morally removed to eliminate the risk to the mother. The intent here is to remove an organ that is about to rupture (no different than if a tumor was there). To not do so would be life threatening to the mother. It is unfortunate that the threat happens to be caused by an abnormal pregnancy. If the child dies his or her death is not directly intended but is tolerated as an unintended consequence. (In the future it might be possible to implant such a child into the uterus. Until such time, however, the procedure is still moral.)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=17307
When will the MSM vet 0bama?
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.