Cain: Government Shouldn't Make Decision on Abortion, Rape

LifeNews.com ^ | October 20, 2011 | Steven Ertelt

[rintense]

But Perry's stance on abortion is VERY clear:

Katherine Cesinger, State Press Director, RickPerry.org, Inc., says, re: Governor Perry’s position on abortion: “His position has been consistent on this. Gov. Perry is pro-life, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

[magritte]

There’s no point. He’s just a Cain spammer.

[rintense]

He DID clarify on Facebook: ‘I’m 100% pro life. End of story.’ Yet, Perrywinkles are spinning a lie even worse than the NYT, especially when their own guys isn’t 100% pro life.

[firebrand]

Pro-aborts like to think pro-lifers make an exception for rape and incest. The truth is that when this concession is made, it is a political concession. No pro-lifer that I know, and I know many, would make an exception for rape or incest.

I know Jewish pro-lifers who make an exception for the life of the mother. That’s about it as far as pro-lifers’ concessions and exceptions.

[firebrand]

Why are you tediously repeating your answer to several posters individually instead of pinging them as a group?

[firebrand]

There are such cases. The pro-life movement has many examples of situations where the medical people involved insisted, totally in good faith, that the woman could not survive the pregnancy but where the woman chose to trust in G-d and go on with it. There could be cases where the woman did not survive, but those are not the ones I’ve heard about.

[firebrand]

I’m not a Perrywinkle if that means believing Perry can do no wrong. His position is a political position, as all the candidates’ positions are. I will look at all the candidates individually and with as little shallow emotion as possible at some point before our primary.

[FreeReign]

Why are you tediously repeating your answer to several posters individually instead of pinging them as a group?

I can't speak for the poster you addressed that comment to, but I find the removal from context of Cain's remarks by more than a few posters to be tedious.

Perhaps the posters became impatient.

[firebrand]

Also, he seemed to be making a distinction between personal belief and his political stance. He has to clear that up. He has to say what he means politically by “pro-life”—will he back up his personal belief with the correct executive orders and positions on Roe v. Wade and the proposed human life amendment? As I pointed out earlier on this thread, the term “pro-life” is misused by many.

[firebrand]

We will soon see, as long as we have a smart interviewer this time and one who isn’t trying to pull any tricks.

[metmom]

Again, though, there simply are not that many situations in which it is necessary to take the life of the baby because of a threat to the mother’s life, especially in the early stages of the pregnancy.

The life threatening to the mother’s life ones tend to happen at a stage in the pregnancy when the baby can be delivered prematurely without being killed.

Any life threatening issues that occur in early pregnancy, before 20 weeks, if they threaten anyone, are by far more likely to be threatening the life of the baby, resulting in a miscarriage.

[firebrand]

This could be true, statistically. But we are not talking statistics. We are talking about the cases where perhaps the mother has an underlying medical condition prior to the pregnancy, and it is known from the get-go that she will not or might not survive. Or she develops an illness early on.

[PieterCasparzen]

And what situation would that be where a baby would pose such an immediate threat to the mother's life at a stage in the pregnancy where the baby is too young for survival, say 20 weeks?

I'm simply saying that that is the only logical possibility where early delivery might be warranted, a situation where the mother's life is in real danger and delivery would save her - and only early delivery will save her, there is no alternative. I'm not advocating for abortion, simply discussing a hypothetical situation that has probably come up only very rarely, where that early delivery is known ahead of time to be dangerous for the child.

Rape, incest, all of those simply mean that people regret who the father is, but having a repugnant father does not justify killing the child.

Abortion is intentional killing of the child. I can't think of a case where that is warranted. Early delivery would entail making the child as comfortable as possible if it was most likely that they would die. But early delivery does not mean - as far as I know- inducing delivery then killing the child.

The only justifiable situation for doing something that is likely to result in the death of the child is that is if that it is the only way to save the life of the mother. I googled a little, I could not find a specific case where that happened, though it may have. The only thing I found in my quick search was eclampsia, but it did not look like that was typically life-threatening for the mother these days before the earliest possible delivery.

Yes, in terms of no need to kill the baby after early delivery is possible, (20 weeks, 24 weeks, whatever the precise time is, doctors know), that's absolutely true. Once the child can survive if delivered, I did not find any medical reason why killing the child would save the mother's life.

[metmom]

The only situation that I am aware of where the baby poses a threat to the life of the mother early in the pregnancy is in the case of a tubal pregnancy and addressing that is not considered abortion.