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 ...
“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.
***
That’s a hyper devastating charge. Can’t wait for the average democrat voter response.
Abortion = racism in practice
“when the life of the mother is at stake”
Well he (and other candidates) are going to have to explain how this one would work in practice
***
I don’t understand how a pregnancy can jeopardize a woman’s life. Maybe a doctor can explain this, and thus why an abortion would help.
I have heard all of the political and emotional arguments for the “except in the case of rape or incest” illogic and though they are seductive, they are not convincing.
From the political perspective, one might suggest that there is a better chance of getting anti-abortion legislation passed when exceptions are allowed and I have no reason to doubt that assertion. From the emotional angle, we all have heart-felt sympathy for the victimized mother.
There is a powerful reluctance to force a woman to continue her physically demanding and emotionally draining role in the most divine function of God’s nature when the initiation of that process was without the mother’s normally assumed consent. We would be assigning to her the responsibility to carry into this world a new soul who will be a seemingly unholy combination of her own self and of a man who is either frighteningly unknown or sinfully familiar.
There is, of course, the almost inescapable temptation to assume this new person will somehow not be good because the genetic code of a rapist was used in his/her construction. Or that the new person will somehow not be complete because of the potential for physiological problems to arise when daddy is grandpa.
Adoption is always an option when the post-birth burdens outweigh the natural desire of the mother to nurture a child which is, after all, still half her.
On any scientific or logical rationale, assuming human life has value, I would ask two questions:
-Does it continue to grow and change via natural biologic process? - If so, it is alive.
-What will you call this life if the natural process is allowed to continue? - If the answer is ‘human’, then it has rights.
More directly to your point, if that life inside you is threatening your life, then you are allowed to defend yourself. No different than if your kid was trying to kill you with a gun. Thanks for helping to point that out to some here inventing false choices.
Add to that the fact that Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned, and you have yourself an issue good for getting votes and stirring the pot, and not much else.
Actually, that very situation happened to me. I was a mushy-headed 19-year-old when I became pregnant by the man I was living with. He said that if I kept "it" I could find a new place to live. When I went to Planned Barrenhood they told me that "it" was "only tissue" and that I "could always have a baby later." I chose to have an abortion. I married the man I was living with. I became pregnant again a year later. He reacted the same way, but I told him I was keeping "it."
At 10 weeks (as God in his mercy would have it, the same age as my aborted baby) I was brought to Emergency for surgery to remove the baby and the fallopian tube which was bursting and killing me. The baby had been trapped in my fallopian tube as a direct result of my abortion, and that baby and tube had to be removed. There was simply no choice. As a result of my abortion, and of this and one other serious surgery (both related to it), I am now completely barren and childless.
Most doctors, including the converted Catholic abortionist who is responsible for the dissemination of so much info on this subject, Bernard Nathanson, do not refer to the removal of my fallopian tube and 10-week-old baby as "abortion." But the confusion of such terms on this heated topic is a way to get sound-bites of lies into the minds of a public unwilling or unable to investigate further.
When I was 29 I became born again by the power of the Name of Jesus Christ. I realized at that time that 1) I had murdered my own child by choosing abortion, 2) that Jesus died for that sin, too, and 3) I have two babies in heaven.
Please read my post above.
Thank you, Luther1917. I don’t see it as an abortion at all since the child is going to die either way and the mother’s life is at risk. The reason that I stated that “some” may view it as an abortion is a previous thread many months ago.. a FReeper suggested that “nature should take its course” rather than removal of the fetus. Hence, the woman should die in “God’s grace” rather than be saved via the death of a child. I don’t know where to even go with that mentality but to say it takes all kinds!
You are right. This surgery is not rationally referred to as “abortion” however.
Even if Roe V Wade is overturned, it just means NY and Nj will permit abortions and Nebraska and Alabama will not.
Bump that!
I am praising God for your clear thinking on a thread that because of it's subject matter can get all muddied!
Now it's just a political football used to arouse people on both sides, and solidify base support. It's total manipulation with no substance behind it. And politicos on both sides surely love the arrangement. What an easy way to get votes without any consequences or work!
Along the same line, this is the question I have asked many times when the subject of not banning partial birth abortions because it might be needed to save the life of the mother. I always ask how can the life of the mother be at risk AFTER you have already delivered 3/4 of the baby? The only part left is the head and I understand that has to be left inside for legal reasons to do the abortion. In all the forums I've asked this question, I have never had anyone even attempt an answer.
In a rational world, or even a rational media outlet, that is the quote that would have been made into the headline.
Life Begins at Conception.
All men are created equal.
Our Constitution guarantees Equal Protection to all people.
As for you question, one person dying of natural causes is preferable to two people being murdered.
“In Margaret Sanger’s own words...”
A tragic irony is that Sanger did favor the horrible eugenics movement to limit the spread of ‘undesirable’ populations. But she favored convincing them to use contraception, sterilization, etc. To my knowledge she did not advocate actually killing the unborn as is done today in her already infamous name.
“Why is a grown women’s life less valuable to you than a baby in her womb?”
The Constitution says that they are equal.
of course pregnancy can jeopardize a mother’s life, or the mother may require medical treatment that would endanger the unborn:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/morality/abortion/abortion.htm
“I have never had anyone even attempt to answer”.
That’s because there isn’t a reasonable answer, Mupcat. If a woman is healthy enough to be induced... deliver vaginally after enduring a labor... and can push a baby 3/4th of the way out... she is dang near done with delivery. Ask any woman who has gone through childbirth... there is literally one more small push (after the doctor makes sure the cord isn’t around the neck). In fact, I may be going out here on a limb.. but to turn the baby around so it is delivered feet first (leaving the head in the birthing canal) is more dangerous to the woman.
Along the same line, this is the question I have asked many times when the subject of not banning partial birth abortions because it might be needed to save the life of the mother. I always ask how can the life of the mother be at risk AFTER you have already delivered 3/4 of the baby? The only part left is the head and I understand that has to be left inside for legal reasons to do the abortion. In all the forums I’ve asked this question, I have never had anyone even attempt an answer.
***
Someone else in the thread reminded me that a “fallopian tube” pregnancy.
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.