Posted on 10/20/2011 7:50:01 AM PDT by julieee
Given the high propensity of women and girls in that situation to commit suicide, this is a no win question.
And discussing the matter while trying to leave that factor out is dishonest to the point of losing any moral authority whatsoever.
Read the whole context from the Morgan interview. Here’s what this article said about it:
>>>>>“Whats your view of abortion?” Morgan asks Cain in the interview.
“I believe that life begins at conception and abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why,” Cain said before Morgan interrupted him and asked, “No circumstances?” to which the presidential candidate replied, “No circumstances.”
Morgan told Cain that that sets him apart from many other Republican candidates who are pro-life but also believe in exceptions such as rape or incest or the life of the mother. He continued by asking Cain if he would ant his daughter or granddaught5er, if raped, to keep the baby — which Cain said “was mixing two things.”
“It’s not the government’s role, or anybody else’s role to make that decision,” Cain responded. “Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidence, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.”
Morgan told Cain that his views on the question of abortion are important because he may very well become president someday and turn into public policy.
“Not they don’t,” Cain said of his views becoming law. “I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”
>>>>>>>
After saying that he doesn’t believe in abortion after rape, Cain was asked if he would want his daughter to KEEP (IOW, not put up for adoption) a child conceived through rape. His remarks after that are in response to that specific question: ADOPTION VERSUS RAISING THE CHILD YOURSELF, AFTER A RAPE.
People are working very, very hard to misrepresent what Cain has said. It was Morgan who suggested that whatever Cain would decide for his own family in the ADOPTION VERSUS RAISING THE CHILD YOURSELF AFTER RAPE issue is what he would force every woman to do if he became POTUS. Cain said that the government isn’t supposed to decide that for families.
Note that Morgan was trying very hard to make it seem that Cain would legislate that same choice for everybody - that government should require a mother to RAISE a child conceived through rape rather than put the child up for adoption. Cain HAD to confront her in the way that he did. Morgan’s framing allowed sound-bites that, if TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, would seem to be pro-choice. SOMEBODY IS BANKING ON PEOPLE’S WILLINGNESS TO HEAR ONLY A SOUND-BITE AND BEING TOO LAZY TO CHECK OUT CONTEXT.
These people are messing with us. Let’s not be part of the problem. We HAVE to read the whole context.
MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?
This is the question he responds to. How can it get any clearer? The question is asked because Cain has already explained that his pro life position includes those conceived of rape or incest.
So, he's "personally opposed, but"?
I happen to agree that that is not a providence of the Federal govt but a State issue.
Why exactly?
Is the baby about to be aborted a person or not?
If the baby is a person, should it not be afforded the same constitutional protections that all other persons enjoy?
If the federal government doesn’t have the authority to stop abortion, neither does the state. The only way you can say the feds don’t have authority is to say the baby is not a living human. If that’s the case, the states can’t impose regulations on what a woman want’s to do with her own “fetus”. If we are talking about a living human, that’s is one of the few things the feds DO have a mandate to protect
I agree..... we got this pesky thing called the constitution, and this little amendment called the 10th. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the feds the power to regulate or allow/outlaw abortion. It is a states right issue, and I for one believe that if the feds got out of it and left it to the states, most if not all would outlaw it....
Read the whole context. Morgan implies that whatever Cain would decide for his own family in the “Keep v Adoption” issue is what he would legislate. Suggesting that if Cain thinks a mother should keep her child conceived through rape, he would make that the law of the land. And he responded to that by saying that government shouldn’t be making those kinds of choices for people (clearly meaning the Keep v Adoption choice).
Again, here’s the whole context:
“Whats your view of abortion?” Morgan asks Cain in the interview.
“I believe that life begins at conception and abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why,” Cain said before Morgan interrupted him and asked, “No circumstances?” to which the presidential candidate replied, “No circumstances.”
Morgan told Cain that that sets him apart from many other Republican candidates who are pro-life but also believe in exceptions such as rape or incest or the life of the mother. He continued by asking Cain if he would ant his daughter or granddaught5er, if raped, to keep the baby — which Cain said “was mixing two things.”
“It’s not the government’s role, or anybody else’s role to make that decision,” Cain responded. “Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidence, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.”
Morgan told Cain that his views on the question of abortion are important because he may very well become president someday and turn into public policy.
“Not they don’t,” Cain said of his views becoming law. “I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”
Your comprehension level is being overwhelmed by your politics. And it is not admirable.
All people have an inherent right of self defense. It is a modernist, humanist and false interpretation of Scripture to deny the right of self defense embodied in it.
The right of self defense is why traditionally if the mother’s or child’s life was in danger, as doctors tried to save both mother and child, if that became impossible, certainly they would seek to save the mother’s life. They did not set out to end either life, but to save them both. The decision to give up on saving the child’s life and to save the mother’s life was only in cases where there was a forced decision between the two. The reasoning is that the mother has a right of self defense and the child being born is not entitled to kill his or her mother that the child might live.
Sometimes mothers, like one recently who refused cancer treatments, make a decision to give their unborn child an almost certain chance of survival while unselfishly reducing their own if that would most certainly kill their unborn child. This particular case was not a decision to commit suicide, which is also defies the commandments of Scripture. Instead, it was a case where there was a strong probability that the mother would have died anyway; her chances of survival with treatment were by no means 100%, but far less, and her unborn child most certainly would have been killed by the cancer treatments. It’s critically important to note that the unborn child was not responsible for the mother’s cancer and posed no threat to the mother’s health in and of themself. In that case, the mother was laying her life down for her child’s much the same as a righteous soldier does - “no greater love”.
Any other case of abortion is a case of the mother or other people desiring that the child never be born and taking the life of the unborn child, which is unequivocally murder.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires the President to take the following oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
As far as enforcing the laws passed by Congress, by all means they should be seeing that this is done.
That being said, one can hardly say that the Constitution was intended to condone the murder of unborn children, rather it was most certainly intended to preserve life up until the Lord takes it in his time. So we now have legal precedent in the United States which is at odds with the intent of the Constitution - actually in an enormous number of ways, this being only one of the more heinous.
Life does indeed begin at conception, to say otherwise is trying to escape natural law (that law revealed to us by God through the Bible) for our own convenience through invented technicalities, which are acknowledged to be a farce in the case of a ninth-month abortion but somehow people hold their nose and tolerate with a second-month abortion. We have sunk to the depths of institutionalized murder of convenience.
Those who seek to retain the legal option to kill their children in the womb may take generations to come to the realization that this option hurts them much more than it helps them. While a President may not be able politically and legally to right this wrong on the first day of their administration, if they are to fulfill their oath of office in good conscience they most certainly must make it their business to work towards that goal.
“It’s not the government’s role, or anybody else’s role to make that decision,” Cain responded. “Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidence, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.”
I agree with you...
...in that context, it could very easily mean putting the baby up for adoption rather than the mother/family raising it.
Accidents such as miscarriages happen. We do not criminalize accidental deaths, as they are a part of life. However, if an accident happens due to neglect, we have criminalized that behavior.
It is very confusing because the interviewer was mixing things up, and then Cain got mixed up too. The interviewer said raise the baby versus go for adoption, but when Cain spoke about government keeping out of it, he couldn’t have been talking about that decision, because the government doesn’t try to make that decision.
I think we have a case of a pro-abort interviewer, purposely perhaps, trying to emotionalize the issue by bringing up raising a rapist’s child, when that is not a pro-life/pro-abort decision at all and should have nothing to do with it.
Cain is going to have to clarify this. My guess is that he would like to repeal Roe and leave it to the states. The president does have something to say about abortion right now, though, so he can’t completely dodge the issue that way. What will he do about the executive orders that affect abortion, for instance, the ones that keep changing back and forth every time a pro-life president or a pro-abort president takes office?
I’m sure we’ll get clarification from Cain on this shortly.
Cain’s answer would indicate that he is “pro-choice”. Disappointing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? Did you just read the excerpt? Or did you read the entire article, watch the video and read the transcripts in this thread?
I take the exact opposite view. Cain is pro-life. Very encouraging.
It is clear from your title, and if you read the article, that Cain is pro-life.
This article is important though, because it shows that Cain’s position on the issue is no different than the other candidates. After Sunday, a lot of Cain supporters were touting that Cain was opposed to allowing abortions in the case of rape and incest. This interview makes it clear he would NOT ban those abortions.
His argument for not banning those sounds identical to the argument against banning abortions at all — that those decisions have to be made by the family. So the author of the piece says it’s hard to tell whether Cain supports a law banning abortions.
But we can just ask Cain that question. So it’s not a big deal. What is a big deal is that Cain seems to have reversed his position on a Rape/Incest exception from Sunday to today (although to be fair to Cain, on Sunday nobody ever actually pinned him down about whether he supported legislation about it).
This does mean that the Cain supporters will have to stop attacking Perry about this issue. In fact, this now makes Perry better on the pro-life issue than Cain. And yes, I’ll explain:
Cain has never approved a single policy to advance the pro-life cause. He has never signed any legislation that would be pro-life. He’s never made a decision that would prove he was pro-life.
When he was asked, he made it sound like he was so pro-life he’d ban all abortions except to save a life. But then in another interview he said, at least for rape and incest, it was a woman’s decision. So he sounds like he is still trying to decide what his public policy positions should be.
We KNOW what Perry’s public policy position is. He’s been living the pro-life position for a decade now. He’s actually implemented policies, he’s been a solid and consistent advocate.
So, given the two — Cain, whose now-stated position is like Perry’s but who has yet to articulate fully what policies he’ll support, and Perry, who has a proven track record — Perry is the less risky choice for the Pro-Life vote.
I’m retracting that post, because the quote from Cain I cited is actually discussing a different issue; I was wrong, and my argument is therefore false. I’ve asked to have the post removed so it doesn’t get used by anyone in further argument.
What we have, I believe, is another case of where Cain, when he is questioned by a left-wing journalist who presses him with these types of questions, caves in and tries to sound more reasonable.
Like when a journalist asked him about the Texas rock, and Cain attacked Perry for being insensitive even though Perry had nothing to do with the rock.
Or when a reporter pestered Cain about the gay soldier’s question being booed, and Cain wilted and said he should have chastised the audience.
I agree with you that Cain couldn’t have meant the issue of raising a kid vs adoption, because nobody has ever suggested we should force mothers to raise their own children.
The correct answer was — “Yes. It is a tragedy when a woman is raped, but we don’t compound that tragedy with murder. Yes, a woman is traumatized by her attack, and may feel a continued violation because of the child. But the woman also feels a continued violation because her attacker lives, yet we don’t allow the woman to hunt down her rapist and kill him. If we wouldn’t allow a woman to kill the man who raped her, even though his continued life traumatizes her, why would we allow her to kill an innocent baby who is as much a victim of the rapist as she is?”
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.