Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Critics Say Herman Cain’s Abortion Stance Is Confusing
- Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:25pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
As Herman Cain surges in the polls, his personal faith is coming to the forefront of media coverage. The Blaze has joined other outlets in exploring what, exactly, the GOP presidential contender believes about God, freedom of religion and related subject matter.
Now, Cain’s stance on abortion is under the microscope, as critics see both confusion and contradiction in the statements he has made about the fiery social issue.
A few months ago, critics ramped up their questioning when Cain hashed the issue out with Fox Business News’ John Stossel. Here’s how Daily Intel (in a piece called “Does Herman Cain Understand the Abortion Debate?”) frames Cain’s views on the matter:
Cain says “people shouldn’t just be free to abort,“ but also says that ”government shouldn’t make that decision.” He thinks that if a woman is raped, getting an abortion is “her choice, that is not government’s choice,” but then adds that abortion shouldn’t be allowed in the case of rape “because there are other options” and “we must protect the sanctity of life.”
It was as if Cain had no familiarity with or understanding of the role that government plays in the debate over abortion rights. He had simply gathered some common abortion-related words and phrases — “her choice,“ ”government’s decision”, “sanctity of life” — then randomly assembled them into sentences.
Watch Cain’s seemingly confusing comments on Fox, below:
On this past Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” Cain, once again, commented about abortion. Watch his statements, below:
Again, some feel that Cain was not being clear about where he stands. As Daily Intel points out, when David Gregory asked him if his opposition to abortion is as strong in cases of rape and incest, Cain said, “That family is going to have to make that decision.”
But if Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, then there would be a potential that families would no longer have the right to make that very complex decision. Here, it seems Cain was, again, vague. And in a third instance — on Wednesday night — the former businessman appeared on CNN’s “Piers Morgan,” where the following dialogue surrounding abortion took place (via Daily Intel):
CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why –
MORGAN: No circumstances?
CAIN: No circumstances.
MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.
CAIN: They qualify but —
MORGAN: Rape and incest.
CAIN: Rape and incest.
MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.
CAIN: Ask the tricky question.
MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grandchildren was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?
CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?
MORGAN: Why?
CAIN: You’re mixing —
MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.
CAIN: No, it comes down to it‘s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, 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: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively — you might be president. You can’t hide behind now the mask, if you don’t mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.
CAIN: No they don’t. 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 social decisions that they need to make.
MORGAN: That’s a very interesting departure —
CAIN: Yes.
MORGAN: — from the normal politics.
CAIN: Exactly.
Watch, below:
Here, again, it seems like Cain is taking a more libertarian view on the matter of abortion. While he opposes it on moral grounds in any circumstance, he‘s essentially saying that the government shouldn’t tell people what decision to make about such a sensitive “social decision.” Mediaite’s Alex Alvarez concludes:
So, there you have it: Herman Cain is against abortion, personally, but is firmly pro-choice, as he believes the government should not intervene in social decisions. And that extends to same-sex marriage, by the way. As you may recall, Cain said recently, during an appearance on Meet The Press, that “I wouldn’t seek a constitutional ban for same-sex marriage, but I am pro-traditional marriage.”
The problem, as critics and reporters like Alvarez are noting, is that there are many in the pro-choice movement who would agree with Cain’s statements. Also, Cain makes it a point to say that he can have a viewpoint that doesn’t necessarily translate into policy (or the direction of the nation for that matter). But with abortion standing as such a politically-flammable issue, one wonders how these complex views would translate into policy.
In June, after declining to sign the Susan B. Anthony anti-abortion pledge, Cain issued the following statement:
“I support right-to-life issues unequivocally and I adamantly support the first three aspects of the Susan B. Anthony pledge involving appointing pro-life judges, choosing pro-life cabinet members, and ending taxpayer-funded abortions. [...]
“I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues. In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.”
So, based on the evidence, the question remains: Is Herman Cain pro-life or pro-choice? More clarification is clearly needed to make a solid determination.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 577 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 344 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 344 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (351)
MidwestMomof3
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:00pmI have met Herman twice, in person, and heard him discuss his views on abortion during those meetings. What he says is not difficult to decipher…
He, himself, is adamantly against abortion for any reason because there are other options than to choose to end the life of an innocent baby.
He, as President, does not feel it’s HIS job to make that decision for anyone else.
Pretty easy to figure out.
Raisin’ Cain in 2012!!
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:11pmI know, right? The only reason there is “confusion” is because America has been brainwashed into thinking that when a man is elected President, he is endowed with dictatorial powers that mandate personal behavior.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:19pmBut it IS the government‘s job to decide which actions are tolerable and left to the individual’s freedom to choose and which actions are intolerable and must be proscribed by law. Murder, theft, fraud, assault, vandalism, etc. are all examples of private actions forbidden by law. And it is the job of the President to see that those laws which fall under federal jusrisdiction are enforced.
Here’s a question for Federalism: If a State resolutely refused to prohibit the lynching of blacks, to give just one historical example, would the Federal government have any obligation or authority to step in and see that blacks’ civil rights in this area were protected?
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:32pmSounds about right to me also. I am Pro-Life and I will encourage anyone thinking about abortion to take alternative measures even if it was a result from rape or incest. The child conceived in this manner is innocent and should not be punished because the way of conception is from unacceptable means.
Report Post »Yes it can be difficult for the woman to handle, but with sound counseling could get through it. It is not my right to make a decision for the woman, it is hers and ultimately she has to live with that choice. The government needs to get out of personal matters.
fred
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:38pmSo in effect he’s pro-choice! There goes my vote.
Report Post »redfish83
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:41pmYou keep “raisin Cain” and America is going to continue to fall down!!!!!!
Ron Paul 2012
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:41pmOh and hey how ’bout that, Cain believes in God? I don’t actually think most people actually believe in God anymore. No. They only believe in God when someone like a priest is telling them how much God loves them, and go say fifty Hail- Marys. But when you tell someone the things they don’t want to hear such as “You have forgotten the Lord’s Sabbath” then they think you are full of it. And when I tell you that men have forgotten the actual Lord’s Sabbath, they think I’m full of it. Therefore it is that men have forgotten the Lord’s Sabbath, and Moreover God is going to set the earth against men, because they are not keeping the Lord’s Grand Sabbath.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:48pmCofemale,
At what point does the state have the duty to protect a child from its parents? Can a mother of father kill a child ased upon a personal choice?
And we are not even talking about a mother simply aborting her child. We are talking about the practice where a third party aborts her child, and for money. Could a father hire someone to snuff out his inconvenient two year old?
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:49pmI would be fine with this, IF he is willing to outlaw late term abortions. I understand not wanting to get government involved- and I’m overjoyed he wants to cut off government funding for all abortions.
On the abortion issue…I’ve always found it difficult to embrace the “from day one” view when translated into law. You may hold that view- I do- but I also believe the soul is very tenuously associated with the unborn baby in the first several weeks of the pregnancy. I don’t think it feels any pain, it’s more of a possibility- and honestly, I think that’s when women are most likely to lose the baby, those first several, tenuous weeks.
So what I’m saying is, in cases of rape, incest, and stuff like that, I just can’t condone the government coming into your life and saying: “You! You were raped three days ago and just found out you’re pregnant. You cannot, according to law, abort the child! Or we’ll throw you in jail for murder!”
That’s extreme. I think Cain is, once again, taking the practical, and in my opinion, most clearly moral stance. I’m sorry, but the “pro-life“ and ”pro-choice” groups don’t account for how most people think about this issue. Most people aren’t for late term abortions, but they’re not for forcing a rape victim to carry a baby when they could easily abort within a few weeks of the rape. They might choose to do so on their own, with support of family and friends- but not because the law tells them they must.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:50pm“But it IS the government‘s job to decide which actions are tolerable and left to the individual’s freedom to choose and which actions are intolerable and must be proscribed by law.”
Isles is absolutely right here. There’s a big difference between saying “I disagree with this because of my personal feelings,“ and saying ”I disagree with this because it should be illegal.” It sounds like here Cain is saying the first. But if he actually considers abortion to be murder, he will work to overturn Roe v Wade. There’s not really an “I abstain” option in this fight; Cain’s statements seem to read that he falls firmly in the pro-choice camp when it comes to the government’s role in it.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:51pmIgnore Eliasim’s random brain firings. He has ITS, Internet Tourretts Syndrome.
Report Post »MidwestMomof3
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:59pmIslesfordian…I totally get where you’re coming from and understand your point.
I am a pro-life woman who underwent a medical abortion due to a fatal birth defect in my first child (notice “fatal”, not just a birth defect). I have friends that have had abortions. I have friends who have given their babies up for adoption. I have cousins that were adopted. I know both sides of this better than I ever wanted to.
I sincerely believe that Herman will act in the best interest of the unborn when he gets into office because of his firm stance in his personal life. I think he’s *trying* to be more politically savvy (as so many are saying he SHOULD be).
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:00pm@Mary Poppins:
“I’m overjoyed he wants to cut off government funding for all abortions.”
Just to note, government funding is already cut off for abortions. No funding can go to the procedure itself, or to the equipment involved in the procedure. The closest it can come is the Overhead expenses for the clinics provided abortions (ie, paying for the receptions, lights, heat, rent of the building, etc). Furthermore these clinics cannot ONLY provide abortion, they must have other reproductive services as well.
Just an FYI in case you didn’t know. Cain was using a talking point there without much substance behind it.
Report Post »Champ
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:04pmOk, I’ve been a Cain supporter since before he officially announced his candidacy. I let the 999 plan slide because he would have to get it through congress, and I know congress would add things like not paying income tax for your up-to-the-poverty-line income (family of for doesn’t pay income tax for their first 22k of income – for example) Knew it would be polished in congress…
Now, his abortion stance is weak. I just can’t do it. I will have to find somebody else. If Ron Paul would adjust his isolationist foreign policy, I could go that way, but as it stands, I can’t. I guess it’ll be Rick Santorum by process of elimination.
Report Post »godlovinmom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:04pmThat wasn’t hard to figure out…believe it or not…I’m pro choice…you want to murder your baby…you have that right…it’s between you and God…like all sin…I just don’t want my tax dollars paying for it!
Report Post »mils
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:06pmI DON’T CARE !!!
ABORTION, PRO OR CON….
WILL NOT NOT NOT be the deciding factor in who I vote for.
Our country is falling apart, there are other things to worry about…l think abortion is an important issue for some people, not for me.
..I will vote for who I think will be the best leader and take us out of the hole Obama and his predecessors have gotten us into. After we are clear of the Muslim brotherhood, complete economic failure, sharia, and government lies…we’ll take on the domestic issues.
I think the tearing Cain apart campaign has started…lies, distortions etc will be happening…Mitt is a wiener, Perry is a closet liberal it appears, the others don’t have a chance..not even Michelle..
Report Post »Although..Perry is the only one that as a government offical has made a positive impact on his state’s economy…I don’t care if it all jobs at McDonalds..it doesn’t matter…it’s a freaking job..not everyone is a rocket scientist. i just dont’ like some of the things that go on with latinos and rights over natural born citizens in his state..
Abortion is on the back burner at this point.
Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:07pm@ Locked
If there are abortions taking place in a building funded by the government, whether or not the abortions are “directly” funded, I’d still say that qualifies as government funding. I’m for abortions being entirely handled by private practices, period. lol…and for that, we obviously have to get government out of our health care….another gargantuan struggle.
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:08pmHere’s the biggest problem I have with THEBLAZE.COM:
Slanted sensationalism.
It matters NOT how Mr. Cain feels personally on this issue, HE CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. Only our legal system can! Every person living in this country HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE:
1. Between life and death
2. To abort or not to abort
3. To get an education or not
4. To vote or not
5. To work or not
God even gives a choice whether or not to accept His Son as their personal Savior – EVERYTHING IS BY CHOICE (so far). However, the biggest problem I have is that the TAXPAYER IS PAYING FOR SOME OF THOSE CHOICES:
1. ABORTION
2. FOOD STAMPS
3. PORNOGRAPHY ART IN GALLERIES (subsidized by our U.S. Government)
4. NPR
5. Federal employee unions (DO I GET TO SIT AT THE BARGAINING TABLE????) and so on
So, if Cain believes in pro-life or pro-choice, does not matter and if you are going to condemn him for that choice, then you are very narrow-minded. That would mean that you shouldn’t vote for Bachman because she worked for the IRS, or that you shouldn’t vote for Perry because of the illegals, and on and on and on.
Come on people!!! LET’S TALK ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES THAT THE NEW PREZ IN 2012 CAN ACTUALLY HELP TO CHANGE! And, this will take the Congress to do it!
Abortion is a Supreme Court issue and not one for the candidates to argue about, even though it is sometimes nice to know their righteousness. Cain is trying appeal to everyone. Nothing wrong with that.
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:10pm@ MILS
Yup, I agree- not a big issue. And I think his stance will actually be pleasing to most people anyway. I honestly just don’t think it will be something he would even tackle during his presidency…um, LOTS of other things higher up on the list.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:12pmI’m not rambling I assure you. In the days of No’e “E”, people didn‘t see God’s Sabbath coming either, and they partied on, and got married, and had a good old time, right up into it happening. I trying to give you a heads-up. And I won’t be trying much longer. Then after the Days of No’e God told him that all animals are meat for him except the flesh thereof, and they will have the fear of men. Do you know why God had to tell No’e those things? Because during the Great flood of “Waters” not H2O, animals lost all fear of men, and the earth attacked men.
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:15pmChamp:
I am soooooo glad the majority of Americans are not YOU. Herman Cain is NOT for abortion. Personally, he is pro-life and alternatives to abortion. DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!!
Stop believing the slanted news ANYWHERE. Do your own homework on the candidates!!!
Abortion is a legal issue which NO POLITICIAN can do anything about. ONLY the Supreme Court.
If this is the best argument you have, then don’t bother to vote at all because all you are doing anyways, is giving the wrong guy your vote based on incomplete or un-researched information.
I am so surprised that most of you on this board do not KNOW what Herman Cain believes in. He sang in his church choir. I know of no churches, real biblical churches that believe in abortion. And, unless Herman has changed his mind, WHICH HE HAS NOT, he IS anti-abortion, but I also believe that if he could, he would get Congress to stop funding abortions.
So, please do your own research and stop listening to the rhetoric on theblaze.com and other media outlets. Go to his web site and find out for yourself, for pete’s sake. DUH.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:32pm@Mary Poppins
“If there are abortions taking place in a building funded by the government, whether or not the abortions are “directly” funded, I’d still say that qualifies as government funding.”
However, this is not how the government works in any business, not just when it comes to abortion. For example, the University of Florida receives both government funding and funding from other locations (tuition, donations, research, etc). Government funding cannot be spent on, among other things, food or alcohol. However, events do happen that have these things; thus funds from the other sources are used for the events. But the events still take place in a building paid for, and maintained by, government funds.
If this was to change, it would completely change the system, not just in the case of abortion.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:38pm@I Support God’s Israel
“Abortion is a legal issue which NO POLITICIAN can do anything about. ONLY the Supreme Court.”
The President can order the Attorney General to take cases involving abortion and bring them to the Supreme Court level. The president also chooses the Supreme Court justices if they retire during his term (although they need to be approved). Furthermore, if legislation comes up that limits or extends the concept of abortion (say, defining the moment of conception as the start of life; or on the other hand, the moment of birth as the start of life), the president holds veto power.
You are correct in that the ultimate arbiter is the Supreme Court, but don’t be disingenuous; the president can have a huge impact on the abortion debate.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:38pm“Abortion is a legal issue which NO POLITICIAN can do anything about. ONLY the Supreme Court. ”
That is false, and demonstratably so. There are such things as the Mexico city policy, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the Born Alive Act, State laws that restrict abortion due to parental consent, requiring patients to see ultrasounds, etc. etc. Roe V Wade did not clarify what restrictions states could make and what they couldn’t. As a legal decision it is philosophical and legal gibberish.
Besides, nothing the Supreme Court decides is really final, as Congress has the power to override it by initiating Ammendments. I think Congress could even override SCOTUS decesions by a 2/3 vote ratified by the President. Who is to say that can’t be done? The Supreme Court? The Constitution does not give them that authority to declare such things. Thus it rests with Congress, IF Congress wants to take responsibility, which is dubious. The truth is that much of the “authority” SCOTUS has it claimed out of a sheer power grab. Marbury v. Madison should not have stood but Jefferson probably had no political power to resist it as the Federalist Congress was advantaged by that grossly political decision. A prolife President and a prolife Congress that had the political will could simply nullify Roe v Wade. That would be fantastic, but it wouldn’t end the debate on abortion. It would merely kick it back to the states where it belongs.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:42pm@Isles
“The truth is that much of the “authority” SCOTUS has it claimed out of a sheer power grab. Marbury v. Madison should not have stood but Jefferson probably had no political power to resist it as the Federalist Congress was advantaged by that grossly political decision.”
Too bad that’s been the basis of all major legal decisions for the past 200 years, huh? It’s not likely to change unless the government goes completely crazy; having checks and balances works out well for the most part and has for almost as long as the country has been around. Without the SCotUS as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, it would become a secular Bible: everyone has an interpretation and is convinced their view is right… but nobody has the power to actually claim it is. Neither does Congress, by the way.
The SCotUS’s position is the least evil compromise, really. At least, unlike Congress, they have to back up their rulings with the law.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:53pm” For example, the University of Florida receives both government funding and funding from other locations (tuition, donations, research, etc). Government funding cannot be spent on, among other things, food or alcohol. ”
Locked,
You must realize that, when it comes to government funding, the relationship is more complex than that. The mere existence of government funding of an institution has been seen to justify government jurisdiction over the entire institution. Thus schools that accept government tution loans MUST abide by governemnt rules in the area of non-discrimination, etc. That is why Grove City College rejected all government loans to students 20 years ago. By the same mentality groups that accept governemnt funding can be limited in religious expression in order to avoid church/state conflicts.
So, while in one area the governemnt might accept the fiction that funding to one area of an organization doesn‘t benefit the whole it doen’t always operate by this fiction’s rules It is a fiction because such funding relieves it of a financial burden there and thus frees up money to be spent elswhere. Only if the subsidized activity would not have been done without the subsidy could you say that the subsidy didn’t benefit every aspect of the organization.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:03pm@Isles
“You must realize that, when it comes to government funding, the relationship is more complex than that.”
Most definitely; I’m provided a similar example. It is well within the government’s rights to dictate how funds can be spent if a business or organization accepts them. And when it comes to abortion, it’s been stated that they cannot be spent on the procedure itself or to help pay for it. However, government funds can still be spent on other, non-abortion specific activities, like overhead.
My point aligns with yours: it’s a complex issue, and saying “Don’t use government funds for abortion” is disingenuous, because as far the government is concerned that doesn’t happen. In the same way, the University doesn’t use government funds for alcohol.
Report Post »Applehead
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:03pmOne of the few things the government is to do is protect Americans and abortion is flat out murder and it needs to be outlawed and those who have an abortion she be charged with 1st degree murder!!!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:04pm“Too bad that’s been the basis of all major legal decisions for the past 200 years, huh? It’s not likely to change unless the government goes completely crazy”
I think you are ignoring the way the court radically expanded the application of MvM under the Burger and Warren court. Our political application of Constitutional checks and balances has been insome flux since the advent of the progressive movement. Turning it back to the judicial limits of the 40′s would be radical, but no less so than the progressive movement in the 60‘s and 70’s.
“having checks and balances works out well for the most part and has for almost as long as the country has been around. Without the SCotUS as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, it would become a secular Bible: everyone has an interpretation and is convinced their view is right… but nobody has the power to actually claim it is. Neither does Congress, by the way.”
I wonder what “check” you think there is on SCOTUS. It seems also that you want a kind of legal Magesterium, like the Catholic Church has, to decide things authoritatiively. Don’t you think that fundamentally undermines our essential liberty and the rule of the people?
“At least, unlike Congress, they have to back up their rulings with the law.”
Actually, Roe v Wade demostrated decisively that they didn’t have to back up their rulings with anything. When they decide what the law is who’s going to contradict them?
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:07pmInevitably abortions are usually performed on welfare recipients or soon to be welfare recipients that would likely condition their child to living off the government. I have no issue with abortions in the first 2 to 3 months of conception. However I believe there should be strict mandates attached with it.
1-The cost comes out of their pocket. Tax payers don’t foot this bill, period.
2-If you are on welfare you must have your tubes tied at the same time to prevent this from happening again. Those that claim its “their body” clearly don’t have control of “their body”.
3-In cases claiming rape or incest, DNA should be procured and kept on file to help identify the culprit.
If you can’t end abortion you can at least inject some responsibility into it.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:17pm@Isles:
“I wonder what “check” you think there is on SCOTUS. It seems also that you want a kind of legal Magesterium, like the Catholic Church has, to decide things authoritatiively. Don’t you think that fundamentally undermines our essential liberty and the rule of the people?”
Plenty of checks. They cannot rule on a case unless it reaches the Supreme Court. They base their judgments on prior rulings; or in the case none exist, they apply the Constitution itself. Their interpretation is the final saying on it… until a new court rules on a similar case, as you mentioned. In this way, nothing from the SCotUS is “final,” until another case reaches it. Probably the largest, is that the president and congress can just ignore the ruling; the SCotUS has no actual power to enforce its rulings.
And no, I don’t think it undermines our liberty more than something like the electoral college takes away the power of voters. Or executive orders supersede the will of the electorate. Or any other “authoritative” decisions necessary to run our government do. As said: not perfect, but the least “bad” choice.
“Actually, Roe v Wade demostrated decisively that they didn’t have to back up their rulings with anything. When they decide what the law is who’s going to contradict them?”
Their job is to interpret the Constitution: that’s what they do. And Roe v. Wade was backed up through the right to privacy; you just disagree with it. As said, this is why we have
Report Post »FreedomOnFire
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:20pmActually, if you listen to the question, Cain’s answer is not that the Gov. shouldn’t ban abortions or anything like that. The question was “If one of your female children, grandchildren was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?”
The question was not about abortion but about if Cain thinks the Gov. has the right to tell the mother what to do with the baby AFTER it is born. All Cain is saying is that the Gov. has no right to tell the mother that she has to raise the baby, nor does it have the right to tell her to give the baby up for adoption, that is the mother’s choice.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:20pm@Pontiac
“2-If you are on welfare you must have your tubes tied at the same time to prevent this from happening again. Those that claim its “their body” clearly don’t have control of “their body”.”
Forced sterilization, huh? That’s pretty… disturbing. I‘m assuming you’d also force vasectomies on the father-to-be in this situation, right? Going by this logic, even if the father wants the child, if the mother doesn‘t then he wasn’t very responsible in choosing his mate and thus loses the chance to procreate.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:30pm@Isles
Just for the record, and I think you’ll be on the same page, Roe v Wade had a terrible justification. It is just barely defensible, and honestly the entire thing should have been done in a better manner (say, by having the government define when life begins). However, I still feel that it is the law of the land until it is overturned, which I think is inevitable.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:51pmLocked, I’m glad you recognize what an awfully ruling Roev Wade is. I was goinf to ask if you had read it. It is legal sophistry and hocus pocus discerning the eveolving will of the people. it had zippo foundation in the Constitution, resting as it did on the Right to Privacy which itslef was created out of whloe cloth in Griswold.
But I think you are rather too confident still in the restraint of the court. Your description of its proper role fits a rather conservative jurisprudenec, but that has not been followed very much in recent decades. In the case of the Texas sodomy laws Breyer appealed to European law as a justification for his ruling. Such a situation in which Justices can rule however they please seems to undermine any concept of Constitutional restarint. If we are going to be at the political mercy of arbitrary judgments I would prefer that such judgments would be made by politicians who can be replaced by the people.
The power that the Supreme court holds and wields may be long established but I find it nowhere validated by any act of the people. It isn’t in the Constitution and the people were never asked to affirm it. We are now ruled by judges and lawyers who say they have that authority because they claimed it and that we have no right to deprive them of it unless they say so. that is not American liberty or Republican government in my book. No doubt it works for the people in power, but it is still a usurpation of OUR political liberty.
Report Post »stoptheliesbho
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:53pmYep yep YEP!!!!!! This is EXACTLY how I feel! I am STRONGLY against abortion and same-sex marriage because they are explicity outlined as sin by the ultimate authority of God in His word. However, when it comes to highly contentious social issues, such as abortion – where there are SO many factors other than just some irresponsible chick getting knocked up – it has GOT to be left up to the woman and/or the family. Get raped and have the government force you to murder OR keep the baby? NO THANKS. We all have the RIGHT to liberty – and if the government starts telling us what we would have to do with our own bodies, then we have lost that right. I understand Cain’s possible aversion to the question – it’s not an easy one to answer directly. When you are against something so strongly but know it’s better for you NOT to push that on anyone else and let them make their own decision on it, you’re going to get flack for “not answering the question” or “flip-flopping.” I think Cain’s expressing his opinion while trying to leave the choice (which could possibly be turned into a law one day) up to the individual.
CAIN 2012!!
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:56pm@locked
“Forced sterilization, huh?”
Not forced. Required when you make stupid “choices”.
“That’s pretty… disturbing.”
Not as disturbing as the life they live.
“I‘m assuming you’d also force vasectomies on the father-to-be in this situation, right?”
Actually a database of DNA for all aborted fetuses to find the deadbeats isn’t such a bad idea. Is a three strikes rule such a bad idea?
“even if the father wants the child, if the mother doesn‘t then he wasn’t very responsible in choosing his mate and thus loses the chance to procreate.”
Report Post »Are they on welfare??? When you can support yourself you are free to do what you please. When you are living under the proverbial roof of others you don’t have much say in what you can and cannot do. Actions have consequences. At least they use too.
Gates
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:57pm“I have met Herman twice, in person, and heard him discuss his views on abortion during those meetings. What he says is not difficult to decipher…
He, himself, is adamantly against abortion for any reason because there are other options than to choose to end the life of an innocent baby.
He, as President, does not feel it’s HIS job to make that decision for anyone else.”
And therin lies the problem. If he believes that abortion is the taking of a human life then it’s murder, pure and simple. But to say it has the element of a choice is nothing more than gross hypocrosy. It is trying to have it both ways for the sake of political expediency and that tells me all I need to know about Herman. Murder is murder no matter how you spin it!
Report Post »Doug in Seattle
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:05pmWhat is confusing about this very clear statement?
“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.”
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:17pmDoug in Seattle,
Report Post »Your summation is the essence of the pro-choice argument. That is just the problem. Cain says he is pro-life but he doesn’t here make any clear pro-life POLITICAL argument. Since he is running for political office I expect a political argument rather than just a moral one. If they don‘t affect policy I don’t care as much about his mral opinions. But I want to know what policies he would support on the POLITICAL issue of abortion. He needs to figure out how to be more clear on that.
Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:18pm@Pontiac
“Not forced. Required when you make stupid “choices”.”
Forced is a synonym for required, you know :-P
(No, seriously, I actually looked it up)
I’m not a fan of forced sterilization. Too much like eugenics for my tastes. If you are, well, more power to you. As said, it’s disturbing to me. But as a fiscal conservative I’m also not a fan of big government or social mandates, so meh, it’s unpalatable on many levels.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:20pmLife, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness
It is Governments function to protect life. It is Governments job to tell you that you cannot infringe upon another’s right to Life.. Rape, incest, or just you not wanting a child is all murder. It is taking innocent life for no other reason then you not wanting it. All abortion should be banned and anyone having one should be charged with murder.
As for Cain- how hard is it to say I am for abortion or I am against abortion. One only makes their answers wish washy when they are deceiving or dodging the question. Cain’s comments again show me he is not someone I can support.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:24pm@Isles
Yes, as said, it is poorly written, but it does use some justification. And again, I don‘t think it’s very defensibly, but that‘s why liberals don’t want it challenged.
“It isn’t in the Constitution and the people were never asked to affirm it. We are now ruled by judges and lawyers who say they have that authority because they claimed it and that we have no right to deprive them of it unless they say so. that is not American liberty or Republican government in my book. No doubt it works for the people in power, but it is still a usurpation of OUR political liberty.”
Many things are not in the Constitution that we take for granted now: the electoral college and executive orders, as I mentioned; marriage, in any form; Congressional Districts… but these all help the government run. I’m not railing against them, and most people won’t, because they serve a purpose. The judicial branch was given judicial review centuries ago; and while it leads to some poor rulings, I still say they are a necessary “evil.”
(“Evil” in parentheses because I don‘t actually think it’s a bad thing, just not, ironically, Constitutional. I always felt like there should be an official amendment solidifying this power, but after so long it seems like most people just shrug and go “Well, it works.”)
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:27pm@locked
“Forced is a synonym for required, you know”
Its only required/forced when you choose to have unprotected stupidity. If they want to remain fertile they have the choice not to be stupid. Like you can have guns for self defense, but if you commit “murder” you loose them.
“I’m also not a fan of big government or social mandates”
Report Post »I’m not either, which is why I am for ONE thing that will erode away the voting base for such things.
Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:45pm“I always felt like there should be an official amendment solidifying this power, but after so long it seems like most people just shrug and go “Well, it works.”
But that’s just it, Locked. It DOESN’T work. The constant political brinksmanship and all-or-nothing political game we play on so many issues is ddirectly related to the fact that the Supreme Court has taken ultimate political control of so many issues so that our only control is over who goes on the bench. If it were left to the states, or even to Congress, the political battles would be shorter and less intense. The more power that is being assumed the more visceral will be the fight over what that power decides.
Abortion, sodomy laws, prayer in schools, all these things were being legislated with little political crisis for decades until the Supreme court stepped in to end the battle. And of course they did anything but end it. But now we have to know what a President thinks about abortion and gay marriage and religion because he will appoint judges who will rule from on high on those issues and we will have to sit back and take it. That is not a conservative, or a Constitutional attitude.
I do not think having every aspect of civil life up for graps to be dictated by nine justices to be the least evil by a long shot. I trust such power closer to the people. The Supreme Court was an afterthought in the Constitution and it was given the least text. that says something.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:58pm@Isles
“The constant political brinksmanship and all-or-nothing political game we play on so many issues is ddirectly related to the fact that the Supreme Court has taken ultimate political control of so many issues so that our only control is over who goes on the bench. If it were left to the states, or even to Congress, the political battles would be shorter and less intense.”
See, I disagree. If this current administration has shown us anything, it’s that Congress would rather bicker and stalemate than actually accomplish anything; it’s more important for them to be reelected than to help the US. Even the Tea Party hasn’t helped the situation; their members are more anti-Obama than pro-America, and refuse to compromise on anything. In such a situation, nothing gets accomplished.
And Congress can override the Supreme Court by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The SCotUS can only interpret the Constitution; they cannot rule parts of it unconstitutional. But how likely is this to happen with the Congressional BS we see today? Nigh impossible… again proving that Congress obviously can’t decide much of anything.
On the other hand we have a panel of 9 judges, purportedly masters of the law, who do not need to worry about reelection or politics (in theory, of course). They still need to be approved by Congress, not matter who the president recommends. And they cannot rule on anything except what comes to them; they do not choose their cases.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:01pm(Cont)
These conditions were all set up by the Constitution itself. The only thing not literally Constitutional is judicial review, which has been enshrined in two centuries of law. If the concept of a SCotUS was good enough for the founders, it’s good enough for me. Giving them the last word over legal arbitration is logic and preferable in my mind than leaving that power undefined. Then it truly is based on nothing but politics, as nothing Congress does needs to follow precedent or the constitution (no matter what rules the GOP has enacted saying they must cite the Constitution; this rule is an afterthought at most, and blatantly ignored at times).
Report Post »matt1776
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:05pmISLESFORDIAN is one confused individual. Confusing the state’s police power with the federal government is a basic civics education lesson that apparently you missed. Abortion is not nor even should have been a federal issue. It is much better handled on the local level that is closest to the people, and closest to those making these tough decisions.
Federal funding for abortion is a crime and a travesty, one of the greatest this government engages in. Taking my hard earned money and using it to murder children could not be more immoral.
Report Post »Applehead
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:35pmIf your for real change vote for Ron Paul!!! If you want The Fed, Zionism, open borders and neocons that want more war then vote for the other candidates! Apparently, If you Pro Choice vote for Cain!!!
Report Post »thewatcher93
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:21pmI hate to bust your bubbles here but none, and I repeat none of these people are idealy perfect for the presidency. So you have a choice, don’t vote because none of them is perfect, and let the chips fall where the may. Or play the best hand you have with the cards you have and hope for the best, because the country is in shambles and you’re willing to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings of one of these people.
Report Post »@Isles
Eliasim does have a point, alot of people don’t believe God anymore.
blue_sky
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:26pmI am not sure who is better top dancer Pizza man or Romney. Both will do anything.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:27pmMatt1776,
I guess you haven’t been paying attention, to this argument or to American history. Cain hasn‘t made a States’ rights argument on abortion, so the argument about the state’s right to defend the unborn is one of the debates at issue. And since Roe v Wade abortion has become a federal issue. Were you not aware that the U.S. Supreme Court was part of the federal government? It is a federal argument to override Roe v Wade and return the issue of abortion back to the States.
Report Post »floridaswampthing
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:46pmI agree with you too. It’s very simple to me what Cain is saying because that is exactly how I feel. Finally we have a president hopeful who really knows what conservatives feel and think. For too long we have had the liberals telling us what we should feel and except and that is why it is so confusing to them.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:57pmNo Cain. When a mother with a child in her womb uses her money or mine, through Government funding and legalization, and pays another man, whose profession in a private or public building like a hospital is to protect and save lives, to perform a violent and immoral service which ends the life of a child and sheds the blood of a live human in a very early stage of crucial development, that is absolutely not a decision just between her and God. That is a decision that if we, as the public, accept, condone or allow to proceed, we will reap its consequence under an inescapable judgement of God for accepting as a whole populace the individual evil act of one person to occur under our watch and governance. No doctor, Government, man or mother has the right to end the life of an innocent child in the womb. The mother does not own the body of that child though it be in her womb. Her choice was before she decided to take a risk in doing an act which might result in natural human reproduction. In cases of rape, the violator must be punished, not the women or child, as they are both faultless in the matter.
Watch Cain flip flop and change positions again like he did regarding TARP, bank bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, housing bubble, 2008 recession, Federal Reserve audit and foreign policy. Lots of Cain’s new followers also supported Perry before, and before Perry, they supported Romney. All these candidates change depending on the audience or topic of the day.
Report Post »jenk99
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:58pmUntil abortion is considered murder under the law, it is quite clear what his stance is. Everyone knows good and well that abortion will not be considered murder under law any time soon.
So he is pretty much saying the government should not be involved in this at all. Since he has not stated that he plans on banning abortions we can assume that is not part of his platform an and not a battle he wishes to wage.
Banning abortion will be a HUGE fight with the left fighting tooth and nail. At this point in time, we have different massive fight on our hands. I think this one we can win first. Personally, I do not think we should take this one on, at this juncture.
Report Post »Red Meat
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:35amCain‘s had to tap dance around every issue that’s brought up to him. Guys a ready, fire, aim type person. Loser.
Report Post »Twins Dad in NH
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:50amI am disapointed in the Blaze on this one, the piece they left out of the middle of the response to the Susan B Anthony list is VERY important to seeing where he comes from:
Report Post »“I support right-to-life issues unequivocally and I adamantly support the first three aspects of the Susan B. Anthony pledge involving appointing pro-life judges, choosing pro-life cabinet members, and ending taxpayer-funded abortions,” Cain said in a statement. “However, the fourth requirement demands that I ‘advance’ the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation”
Could it be that he is pro life AND believes in the Constitution being applied equally as opposed to the left wing view of I want the Constitution applied to the things I want and I can bend it when I don’t?
Watchingtheweasels
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 9:12amThe problem with his answer is “He, himself, is adamantly against abortion for any reason because there are other options than to choose to end the life of an innocent baby.
He, as President, does not feel it’s HIS job to make that decision for anyone else.“ sounds an awful lot like ”I am personally opposed to abortion but support a woman’s right to choose.”
A better answer would have been “I oppose abortion with possible exceptions in cases of rape and incest.”
Report Post »NC1
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:04amI’m Pro-Choice. If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby, or unable to accept the risk of getting pregnant, she should choose to keep her legs closed. Same goes for the male counterpart. If he doesn’t want to accept responsibility for being a father, keep it in your pants.
Report Post »Abysmal
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:49pm@Locked
@Pontiac
There is no need to discuss forced/required sterilization at all – just make it all conditional and voluntary. Simply create a restriction that becoming newly pregnant excludes one from receiving welfare (drug/alcohol use could be a similar restriction). Should a woman require welfare assistance in obtaining an abortion, make voluntary sterilization a condition to receive any further governmental assistance. It is then the woman’s choice whether to proceed with voluntary sterilization in order to continue receiving welfare.
This should likely be applied only to new pregnancies of established welfare recipients. This would allow protection in situations such as a pregnant women fleeing from a dangerous domestic situation.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:52pmPro-Life will only get you more people like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXPnSpozHRk
Anyone that has an abortion is already morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Do you want these types of people reproducing and raising another welfare recipient?
I sure don’t, but that’s what will surely come of it.
If you want to reduce abortion the best thing you can do is to have an economy that will put these people to work so they can actually support themselves and their eventual family. Right now, Cain is the only one with bold idea’s that could help do that.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:54pm@Abysmal
Report Post »Sounds reasonable to me.
BoatFix
Posted on October 22, 2011 at 10:44amI find myself feeling the same way as Cain.
I deplore Abortion as I do homosexuality, and adultery. Nonetheless, it’s not my business of what others do in such matters. I do however, protest against any and all tax moneys being used for abortion.
This is more about Glenn Beck wanting his fellow Mormon to be Prez
Report Post »GodisProLife
Posted on October 23, 2011 at 1:21pmWell, I’m personally and adamantly opposed to slavery, but if my neighbor wants to own slaves, then who am I to stop him.
Have I made my point? Abortion is murder. Murder is illegal in this country. Roe v. Wade falsely allowed people to think that they can sign on to something just because it’s “legal”.
Report Post »TomBurpee
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:58pmWhile the words from his mouth are confusing, I think Mr.Cain is pitching for the over-turn of Rowe V. Wade, as well as laws being drawn back from the subject of abortion. Meaning, less action, more talking. He wants to move abortion away from being a procedure at the hospital, to a discussion at home.
Report Post »While he’s not articulating this very well, he’s also pitching for having a President that can see beyond his own nose.
Lumbar Spine
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:33pmTOMBURPEE: “While he’s not articulating this very well…”
I agree with that…but why is abortion any different from any other topic Herman Cain talks about and then has to go back and keep explaining? Herman is shifty…
TomBurpee
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:43pmI‘d like to think that he’s so comically inept at this because he’s used to having a chart behind him, or notes that everyone can review. Remember he’s a business man, and while yes, it is easier to sell Pizza than a flat tax, he might be over simplifying. Politicians are practiced at over explaining, or saying nothing at all in a two hour speech.
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:24pmOh my….every one of you. Pick, pick, pick until there is no one left.
ISSUES PEOPLE – ISSUES THE CANDIDATES CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT!!!!
Cain is NOT shifty. He is the only candidate that has not attacked another, when all the others have attacked the others. Cain has character and integrity because he refuses to lower himself to the standards of the other candidates.
I can most likely pick each candidate apart, too, but does that mean I then throw each one of them away and end up voting Democrat or not at all? You need to use your common sense here and stop thinking like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – suspicious and stupid.
Herman Cain has been up front all the way. I know exactly where he stands on everything so I do not know why most of you DO NOT. It is probably because you‘d rather read comments from someone else who didn’t do their own research themselves, so you take it as the truth. Because the elections in 2012 will make or break this great country, I leave nothing to chance. I RESEARCH EVERYTHING GLENN SAYS, THE BLAZE, FOXNEWS, AND ANYTHING MY LOCAL NEWSPAPER TELLS ME. I do NOT want to be responsible for someone elses’ lies, slants, or suspicions. DO YOU? If you say you don’t care, then why are you here? Go to the Democrat side because that is how they think.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:24pmPizza man will serve ANY toppings his advisers suggest or donors ask.
Report Post »catholiccowboy
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:55pmrose-ellen…
Report Post »You are exactly right, Abortions is the taking of innocent life….and every human being on this planet should be doing everything in there power to stop it. That child had no choice in the matter, and we fight for the lives of other all around this globe…..so lets start defending the defenseless! It should never come down to it in the first place …the choice to have an abortion should be made before you agree to have sex! It’s not like you never had a choice to begin with, people need to realize the simple fact….there is something we do prior to becoming pregnant that is a safer choice….? just saying!
stopspendingourmoney
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:59pmHerman Cain is unelectable and his 999 plan has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, Ron Paul’s plan is much better, he has allot more support and he has been right on everything he has said about tarp bailouts housing and the economy, he was right all along, look and see where Cain stands on the feds and tarp, he is just another tool for the elites wake up Cainites!!! he is not the man he is just more of the same, Ron Paul is who we need at this time. Ron Paul 2012. Cain will be just another nail in America’s coffin possibly the last.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:40pmMost Herman Cain supporters are Tea Party members. What most Tea Party members/Cain supporters don’t realized is that the GOP war/bank machine hijacked the movement. “Occupy Wall Street”people warned not to let their efforts get hijacked (like the GOP hijacked the Tea Party)
Report Post »Napolitano suggests common goals.
End the Fed
End the wars
End the income tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF30eMuWFHI
whywonder
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:52pmBuh-bye herman its been fun. You failed the purity test.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:35pmWhat about the intelligence test? The man cannot defend his beliefs. It always sounds like he is reading off talking points and then gets flustered and blames everyone else when he gets asked a detailed question.
Report Post »Lumbar Spine
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:37pmNot Presidential material…sorry, Herman.
Report Post »13th Imam
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:59pmThe Socialists don’t like Herm
If Lumbago and 30 second wonder don’t like him, he’s Ok in my book.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:01pmWow, Market that sounds more like Obama. Are you sure you are not projecting here?
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:02pmThe purity test? You explain to me how it’s the moral right of the government to put a 15 year old girl in jail for getting an abortion 10 days after getting raped. You really want to argue that it should be, by law, illegal for her to do so?
You aren’t thinking straight. There’s more than “pro-life“ and ”pro-choice”. It’s sounds like Herman Cain, once again, is pro-common sense, and pro-morality. I‘d say he’s more of a Christian than all of the people who truly feel the government should be given the power to do what I described above. It‘s practically as evil as China’s one child law.
As an individual, would like to say that I would never get an abortion. Of course, heaven forbid I ever found myself in the position of that (imaginary) 15 year old girl- then I‘d really know what I’d do, and not a minute before.
I wonder what Glenn Beck’s stance is on this- in terms of policy. Because I can say I’m “pro-life” in my own personal life, and not be pro life when it comes to law- just as is Herman Cain. You know, I think he understands that this is an issue only truly fixed by the culture, by people loving God, not by government- thank goodness for his common sense. It seems like it’s just too much for some people to handle, though.
Try having a little empathy, guys- put yourself in the shoes of a 15 year old rape victim, and then tell me with a straight face that you would throw her in jail for aborting 10 days into a pregnancy.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:48pm@COFemale
It is essential for me that a candidate is able to rationally work through an issue and be able to consistently apply and verbalize his conclusion. To claim that the desire for a candidate intellectually capable enough for rational consistency is a progressive trait is quite absurd. The populism of folksy candidates is irrational and plays to base instincts. btw, guilt by association is a logical fallacy.
Report Post »Jeff65
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:55pmThe president has much to do with the mood of the country and the direction of laws. Cain speaking on abortion does not give me any confidence that he really cares much about this issue any farther than getting elected. Compare his answers with Ron Paul’s answer in his interview with the same guy and you will know exactly what I mean.
This is typical of Cain in the way he answers many issues. See his answers on why he didn’t see the housing bubble ending or the economic crash when Ron Paul and Peter Schiff did. Ask him why he was against the American being assassinated and then he was for it. Ask him why he said a national sales tax would be dangerous and now is for it. See his answers on auditing the Fed with his lies about what he said. He was quite clear on Tarp though – he was for it IF it was implemented properly (and Cain supporters like that).
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:34pm“You explain to me how it’s the moral right of the government to put a 15 year old girl in jail for getting an abortion 10 days after getting raped.”
Who the heck is arguing for THAT, Poppins? Talk about a strawman argument.
It is more likely the right of the government to fine an abortionist who performs a dangerous medical procedure on a 15 year old without her parents consent.
Try to understand the moral principles as well as the nuances of the pro-life position before spouting your ignorance.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:50pmMy friends and I have never debated this issue. How did this get to be such a hot button when someone is running for President? Did a President ever oversee an abortion? Cain made it perfectly clear, he doesn’t believe abortion should be legal but ultimately its a womans decision. As I don’t father illegitimate kids, I don’t care.
Report Post »larman
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:05pmYou may want to ask Ron Paul about witnessing and abortion. He has a video about it on his you tube web page. Im confident after anyone watches the video they will not abort.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:20pm“Cain made it perfectly clear, he doesn’t believe abortion should be legal but ultimately its a womans decision”
If Cain doesn’t think it should be legal, as the ultimate head of the executive branch he should work to overturn it. If he personally doesn’t like it but think it should remain legal, he should say so. I think he’s saying the latter, not the former, but doing so in terms that don’t turn off hard-right voters.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:42pmThat seems inconsistent to me:
Report Post »Cain opposes abortion, but supports someone’s right to have one.
Cain opposes gay marriage, but does not support their right to do so.
????
fred
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:42pmIf it‘s not the government’s job to prevent the practice of tearing the arms and legs off of little kids, then what the hell is the government’s job?!
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:19pm@ Larmen I’ve seen many videos on this issue and Ron Paul is still an idiot.
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:23pmFred, I’d like to hear more detail about what he thinks- but I think suggesting he’s all for late term abortions is putting emotion above reason, here. What he is saying is that this is a deeply personal decision- and when you’re less than a month pregnant after having been raped, the idea of the government stepping in and telling you you can’t abort is just as abhorrent to me as the “children getting the limbs ripped off” argument.
Seriously, that’s evil, to force something to do that- maybe a 15 year old girl, attacked by a stranger- telling them, telling her parents that they’ll go to jail for murder if they abort less than 30 days into the pregnancy- that’s insane. It’s just as insane as forced abortion. There’s a balance here, and it requires a clear head. Nobody’s talking about the late term abortion issue- that wasn’t really addressed.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:08pm“There’s a balance here, and it requires a clear head.”
Just a point… there really isn’t a balance. For many people it’s night-and-day. Cain has said that life begins at the moment of conception. If he carried this to policy, all abortion would be made illegal. As president, he would be in a position to potentially decide through policy what is the moment of life. As abhorrent as it would be to force a raped child to have a child of her own or face jail, Cain could have the power to make that decision.
Either you accept life begins at conception, or you set some other “artificial” marker. Right now that marker is usually “viability,” hence the justification for stopped late-term abortion. But viability is pushed further and further back through science, it could easily get to the point of conception (or at least as soon as pregnancy can be detected). Then the marker will either need to change, or the law will.
Report Post »OpenRevolt
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:49pmEARTH TO CAIN BOTS–Cain plans to tax you based on your neighborhood’s skin color and redistribute the wealth and power of America–just like Obama!
From his own mouth: “Instead of in a designated empowerment zone, it being 9-9-9, it could be, as an example only, 3-3-3.
What this does, because you have a lot of African-Americans located in cities like Detroit, disproportionately, it would encourage businesses to stay in business there or to move there. It would encourage people to work there, because if you live in the empowerment zone, you’re going to pay a smaller percentage in taxes.”
SEE THE CNN VIDEO HERE:
http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2011/10/14/cain-blows-up-999-plan-with-empowerment-zones/
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:54pmHow is it different from today, when the government pays them welfare with MY TAXES anyway?
At least, his plan would encourage people to work.
Report Post »Bumr50
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:54pmAnd Rick Perry is a walking, ill-tempered moron prone to crony-capitalism and fits of “governing from the heart” against the constitution.
And his “foreign policy” chops consist of his relations with Mexico.
“Governor and GOP nomination hopeful Rick Perry said in a campaign speech on Saturday that he would be willing to send American troops to Mexico to help fight drug cartels that have plagued that country, and sent drugs into the United States, for years. Perry has likened Mexico to Colombia, which accepted American military support in fighting their drug lords. Mexico, however, has been wary of accepting aid from the United States.
“It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and to keep them off our border and to destroy their network,” Perry suggested at a reception at the home of gubernatorial candidate Ovide Lamontagne. ”
Great.
Report Post »http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/article.php?id=13643
OpenRevolt
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:09pm@Michael61
Do you pay an extra 9% sales tax on top of the current state/local sales tax?
Do you wan to drive to the ghetto because your local restaurant, store, job company, went out of business because it can’t compete with 3-3-3 vs 9-9-9?
Poor people on welfare are still going to be on welfare, it’s just going to buy them more goodies.Plus this is just going to force whites to commute even more into the cities and drive gas and traffic and make more unemployment for small business and drive up competition for limited jobs in “Empowerment Zones”.
IT WOULD CATASTROPHICALLY INSANE–USE YOUR BRAIN PLEASE!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:38pmI don’t think you can criticize the empowerment zones as being racially motivated. That is the same kind of liberal thinking that says that any policy is racist that adversely affects blacks because they are disproportionately part of the targeted economic demographic.
The real problem I can see with such zones is, “How do you END them?” Say the empoerment zone actually EMPOWERS and raises the economic staus of the area. Should its tax status not be revised upwardly to equalize with all the othe zones? It seems obvious that it should, but I can see real problems with attempting to do that. It’s always harder for government to say “no” or take things away from its constituents, unless it’s a tyrannical liberal government. So the easiest way to ensure that such zones are naturally sunsetted is to have a strong government overseeing it. That’s a problem.
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:45pmHey, I am paying close to 50% taxes right now, so paying 9% + 9% + 9% will be even less. If you add double, triple, quadruple taxation at every point in chain, my taxes can only go down.
Report Post »mikenleeds
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:49pmam with you brother Cain , life is precious and upto God ..
Report Post »when we choose to kill babies we are just murders in God s eyes
MarketsClear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:54pmI think its fairly entertaining to look at previous generations of Christians’ view about life and when life begins. The current belief that “life begins at conception” is a fairly new concept. It probably wasn’t fully accepted by the Christian right until the 1960s. Some of the most revered Christian thinkers would probably have very different opinions that the faithful today. St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas would probably both argue that a soul is not granted to the fetus until it has senses. You could interpret that as when the fetus has functional sensory organs. They would probably argue that abortions of convenience are inherently immoral because the motivation is selfishness, but health-related abortions could be viewed as removing a tumor since the pre-sensory fetus does not contain a soul. Its interesting how the modern church has changed its theology of the granting of a soul without a decent philosophical debate to show why the old view is insufficient.
Report Post »c.rozycki
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:48pmOh great, another Republican Candidate that is scared to tell the world exactly what he thinks. Stop giving in to the liberals and stand up for life! BE COURAGEOUS!
Report Post »Arch Stanton
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:00pmHis comments aren’t confusing or even misguided. He actually says the same thing I’ve been saying all along. On moral and ethical grounds, I am strongly opposed to abortion…but in the end, the decision must be left to the person and their family. Otherwise we just live in another two-bit dictatorship. I think Cain realizes this, and that the Constitution must be followed (even though he is opposed to abortion).
This may be a hot button topic for many, but if you’re going to throw out his economic wisdom because he is pro-freedom (he is NOT pro-abortion)…then you’re a slave to your emotions, just like the liberals are.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:43pm@Arch Stanton,
Report Post »Abortion was illegal in most states a hundred years ago. Were they “two bit dictatorships”? I don’t understand from your comment what the role of government is in your scheme. Protecting the innocent is pretty high on my list for jobs the government is supposed to do. We can argue about who and what fits those categories but that‘s not the same as pretending the argument isn’t relevant.
colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:52amWatch Cain flip flop and change positions again like he did regarding TARP, bank bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, housing bubble, 2008 recession, Al-Alawki assasination, Federal Reserve audit and foreign policy. Lots of Cain’s new followers also supported Perry before, and before Perry, they supported Romney. All these candidates change depending on the audience or topic of the day.
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:48pmI support a President who would leave it up to the states to decide. If someone wants to get an abortion, who am I to stop them?
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:21pmWell, you did a pretty good job of stopping yours.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:11pmliberalmarine, you know there is no logical conection between your first and second sentence, right? Unless you think you are the federal government you are responsible for deciding through State initiatives or through electing State representatives who will draft laws on this subject.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:30pmLet it be declared nationally (through statutes, policies, decisions and the sort that relate to and surround the matter) that abortions are unlawful. Let the States enforce the illegality and pass the regulations, laws and criminal judgements concerning the matter. Understand that the federal Government does not have much Power to prosecute Citizens that commit abortions or to be policing the unlawful act of abortion within the several States. We do not need another national department or agency to govern our personal lives. As in other crimes, let the States sort out the details. That’s the best we could do to stay loyal to the federal Constitution and our moral obligations.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:59am*Let it be declared nationally, especially through the Supreme Court.
Report Post »catholiccowboy
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:48pmAll I know is my money ..thru taxes …should never be used to kill babies, and further more I strongly agree with him, I don’t believe government should be providing this service to woman …or promoting it for that matter. He is a Christian and knows full well that Christ is only about and for life! The choice to not have a child should be decided before you allow your self to become sexually active….don’t do the deed and then realize afterwards you screwed up!
Report Post »Timothy_Reid
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:11pmI have to disagree with you about that in an odd sort of way. What our Heavenly Father and his son Christ are about is free agency. I agree with you completely that abortion is wrong, and have faith that it will be held in that view by our creator, but first and foremost we have been given the right to choose for ourselves what path we will follow. The commandmentst say thou shalt not kill, not; thou shalt make sure no one will kill anyone else. They say thou shalt not steal, not; thou shalt make sure no one steals, etc… the point is when we are given direction from our creator throught he scriptures it is personal, it is telling each of us how we should or shouldn’t act. If we will focus more of our time on controlling our own actions instead of worrying about others it would solve a lot of problems. Again I do agree with you abortion is wrong, and it would be a greater wrong in taking away a persons free agency to be able to make that decision for themselves.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:05pm@TIMOTHYREID We did not make an appeal to the Great Legislature of the Universe when declaring our Freedom and Independence to decide for ourselves as individuals what is right or wrong but to accept the righteous precepts and perfect law of our Creator that we may be guided in our intentions and act accordingly as a Nation and People, wholly acceptable to God. To address your concern; To avoid a centralized and national all powerful Government, we the people have established a federal Union of several States each governed under a Constitutional Republic. Under this form of Government we have the best possibility to limit and restrain our State and federal Government and yet keep our moral obligations most beneficial to the good of society.
“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.” Exodus 19:5-8
“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” Proverbs 14:34
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:47pm@Rose-Ellen
Well, as some great scientist said:
“If your theory has contradictions, it is mature enough”. Or something to that effect.
And vice versa. If your believes have no contradictions, you didn’t think hard enough.
Of course you have no clue about the Goedel theorem, so my words are lost on you, but posting anyway.
Btw, are you a racist for smearing a black guy? Gotcha.
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:50pmThere are statements that are true. There are statements that are false. And there are statements that can not be proven true or false. Those statements are called paradoxes or contradictions, and they always exist in any system, including Herman Cain belief system.
You can not reconcile many issues like pro-life, pro-choice, death penalty, Christianity, et cetera. Each of them individually is true, but there are situations where they will necessarily contradict.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:24pmHe’s not expressing a contradiction. he is saying that it is all right to kill innocent people though he himself would not. he is playing at valuing innocent human life[covering himself by saying he would never do it] but allowing others to do it. if you believe in allowing people to deliberately take innocent life you don’t value it as much as you value the right of other people to do so if they choose. That is not valuing human life over the freedom of allowing people to kill people [in this case the unborn] if they choose.Other peoples desires to take an innocent human life trumps in his view ,that innocents beings right to exist. That innocent human has no right to exist is what he is saying.Though in his “goodness” he would grant it existence by not killing it himself. [or by teaching his children that he would like if they would also be good enough to let an unborn human go on living].No contradiction-just posturing oneself as valuing human life over freedom to take human life-when in fact you don’t. A lie-a faker -a poseur..
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:54pmI oppose abortion, but I support the right of woman to control her body, but I oppose abortion, but I support the right of woman to control her body, but I oppose abortion, but I support the right of woman to control her body, but I oppose abortion, …
See the paradox? See the contradiction? If there was a simple logical answer to this question, people would have found it by now.
There are many such gray areas in life, where you can not say is it true or false…
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:54pmThat a theory which has contradictions is a sign of maturity i disagree with. it is a sign of lying to oneself or the world. An ethical contradition is in fact impossible. All values are really binaty[good bad right wrong] And decisions are based on likes and dislikes[emotional,not rational]. when an ethical contradiction is expressed[cain in this case] he is really exposing his emotional likes and dislikes. All ethics is about likes and dislikes hence these contradictions don’t show maturity but basic emotional binarylikes and dislkes.They expose inaauthenticity[possing as being rattional and principles when in fact yout ethics are a result of what you like and don't like]. [emotive responcesces to situations]
Report Post »Yes i believe innocent adult human life is as valuable as innocent unborn human life-hence i am against war though i do believe that you have the right to kill people who attack or attempt to kill you. i believe in the death penalty.i believe when people rise up against dictators and call for help in toppling a dictator it is right to help them militarily. it is never right to drop a bomb on a dictators house if innocent people are there though. i did not vote for obama because he is pro choice. i can’t vote for a pro choice or pro premptive war and war candidate. say what you will.
Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:04pmBinary logic? True / False? Come on.
Well, beside primitive binary logic, there are other logics: multi valued logics, fuzzy logics, probability logics…
Binary Aristotle logic and Hegel dialectic (negation of negation) are just that, the simplest possible logic which kinda works in 90% of cases.
Real life is much more complicated. Usually, there are no “true” and “false” answers in the real life.
For instance, is it better to eat Chinese food or Indian food for dinner? Binary logic doesn‘t work here because you don’t have two opposing answers. Let’s say “Chinese is better” has 25% probability of being true, “Indian is better” has 25% probability of being true, but there are also countless other alternatives.
Consider also matrix logics (quaternions), quantum mechanics (where each quantum number may be 2, 3, 4, etc, valued logical group).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic
In logic, a many-valued logic (also multi- or multiple-valued logic) is a propositional calculus in which there are more than two truth values.
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:12pmBtw, read the book “Why we lie”.
Lie is the base of human behavior (as well as animal behavior in general). One of the symptoms of insanity is inability to lie to yourself.
People unable to lie to themselves are either live in asylum, or homeless, or fanatics like Ron Paul.
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:15pmBtw #2, my definition of understanding:
You think about some issue applying all kinds of logic (trying to prove it is true or false). Since any real issue has no solution, you can’t prove either way. Your brain shuts down in either stage (true or false), and you “understood” the issue.
Report Post »Michael61
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:52pmBtw #3
Binary logic is a result of projecting of an infinitely complicated reality on simple axis with 2 values (Hot versus Cold, Big versus Small, Smart versus Stupid, Good versus Evil, Yang versus Yin).
There are infinite number of such axis, and each one is only a simplification of reality, a projection.
Since your brain need to make solutions all the time based on imperfect and incomplete information, it has to simplify, to project, to clusterize, and to assign LABELS.
After your brain assigns labels, it can easily solve problems by using simple rules. Cat? Pet it. Big Dog? Looks unfriendly? Run. Looks friendly? Pet. Woman? Looks accessible? Exchange phone numbers, invite for a date.
When you see something to which you can not assign a label (unfamiliar), you either ignore it (usually you don’t even recognize its existence), or avoid it, or reject and attack it (racism, homophoby, etc).
Chinese say: Emptiness is the mother of 10,000 things. Naming (labeling) is the father.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:13pmMichael, you are working WAY too hard to speak like a fool. If you are going to spout foolishness you could save yourself quite a few steps. Your psuedo-logic and philosophical babble don’t really fool anyone, let alone someone trained in actual logic and philosophy.
Report Post »NOBALONEY
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:47pmFirst the MSM went after Romney for his Mormon faith, and now Cain’s Baptist Faith. I read it as he opposes Governments involvement and funding of abortion. A clearer question would have been: Will you reverse the Mexico City Resolution if elected President?
Report Post »Once again, the MSM is scrutinizing these candidates in areas they NEVER challenged candidate Obama in 2007-8.
Airb0rne4325
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:45pmSounded clear to me. Can’t give a simple answer for such a complex issue. I believe his stance was it doesn‘t matter what he believes and that the gov’t shouldn’t be involved in the decision.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:40pmHe’s in fact as liberal as can be, you gulls. When he says that personally he is against abortion but he would not impose his beliefs on others ,he in fact is pro-choice. same old ,same old liberal pro abortion position!That he snuck that one past you till now -shows he’s just another policitican speaking out of both sides of his mouth. As a catholic there is nothing christian about saying you‘re against abortion because you know it is the taking of an innocent human live and that is wrong but you don’t oppose other people doing it!r ridiculous and as morally bankrupt as you can get.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:52pmRose-Ellen,
He is not speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Herman Cain is in fact a libertarian. Do you know what that means? He states it straight as the issue should be. He is a conservative and would not chose abortion in his life and for his family. However, he believes that is a moral decision with regards to the individual that is faced making that choice. He is stating that what his faith’s dogma states does not, and should not, contradict what another feels is morally acceptable.
It is confusing for many who do not understand the limits of power of the Government. Herman Understands that limit. He says his personal faith will not prevent him from allowing others to have that choice. However, personally, he is pro-life. Stop trying to bait people into hating a man for being intellectually honest.
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:59pmRose-Ellen
Report Post »When Herman, who is not catholic, is saying that people should be responsible for themselves and that government should not be interfering in people’s lives, does NOT sound liberal to me and it didn’t sneak by me.
We “gulls” have been saying that women are free to get abortions, just don’t make us pay for it.
Justathinkin
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:00pmActually, what he said is a Libertarian idea and not a liberal one. And he is absolutely correct. The gov’t cannot legislate morality, that is not its job. Just like following Christ is a personal decision, moral living is a personal decision. Making laws that determine how others are allowed to live is a violation of God’s gift of Free Will. If a woman chooses to murder the gift God has given her or a pair of homosexuals decide to violate God’s law on marriage, that is their choice and they need to face the spiritual price of those choices. Calling for Pro-Life legislation or DOMA on a national level is a liberal idea because the people are expecting the gov’t to play the role the Great Controller. How about instead of harassing the Federal Gov’t to handle the issue, go to the state level where it is supposed to be handled?
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:04pmROSE-ELLEN,
was the murder of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 equally as upsetting to you as 3,000 abortions? Or was it, as you stated elsewhere: “a fantastic stunt”?
Does your version of God view the murder of adults differently than the murder of children? Or does he applaud murder (like you do) when Muslims are doing it?
Report Post »Will4Freedom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:06pmActually, Johnny, I think it would be more accurate to say Cain is a Republican who holds (or professes to hold) some Libertarian beliefs. But I don’t for a minute believe is a full Libertarian. I just can’t get past his support for Tarp and the Federal Reserve.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:27pm@Will4Freedom… Well, I am speaking from personal experience. I live in the wonderful state of Georgia and listened to Herman quite regularly. He identifies himself as a conservative, not a Republican. He also supports the Tea Party 100%. Before he ran, he would attend most rallies and speak. His favorites quote was that government needs to get off our backs and stop being a burden to the populace. He believes in free markets and freedom. He is a strict Constitutionalist that wants to repel the Income Tax and bring the Fair Tax.
He frequently would sub for Neal Boortz on AM750 WSB. I am very familiar with his views and stance. He is in no way 100% Republican. He is much closer to Ron Paul than anyone thinks. He has blasted the Republicans time and time again for being too Liberal (IE progressive). He always blasted the over spending of the Bush, Congress and Obama. He did support the bailouts, but you have to understand that the banks were not giving payroll loans to small business and people were not getting paid (as payroll loans are quite common place). The banks were holding business hostage due to the down turned economy. The bail out was not to free up loans for the personal loans, but to re-open lines of business loans so Americans would continue getting paid.
Report Post »netmail
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:39pmAbortion: His view is confusing because it’s conditional. Gay Marriage: Seems more pro than con to me as he wouldn’t stop it. If you are one who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, why wouldn’t you do everything to defend your belief? Compromises are what is killing America more than anything IMO. Compromises with evil no less.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:43pm“If you are one who believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, why wouldn’t you do everything to defend your belief?”
Normally the answer to this is because they are not a theocrat. Marriage is not a collectivist institution. It is a private contract between individuals. You may personally and religiously believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, however that does not give you the power to impose your view of marriage on others and restrict the ability of other individuals from entering into private contract. I personally believe that adultery is wrong, however because it is a voluntary consensual action, I have no force other than persuasion to try to stop it. It would be a gross abuse of rights for me to try to enforce marital faithfulness with the force of government, just as it is the same kind of abuse of rights to try to enforce who may enter into the contract of civil marriage through government.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:11pmWhen libertaiians justify the legality of taking innocent human life on appeals to liberty and freedom-they are morally bankrupt. The taking of innocent human life is anti-the bill of rights, the constituion and basic ethics. It is the anti-thesis of our professed american values.If innocent human life is not protected under law then we are not an ethical people. All other values and laws derrive from that self evident principle that all innocent humans are of equal value and have equal right to life.
Report Post »yes the victims of 9-11 were innocent and al quada are murderers. My point on that has always been that so are we. We have always been willing to murder innocent people for our interests. Our righteous indignation about the deliberate killing of innocentsand refussal to ask why they chose to attack us is therefore hypocritical[we expect other people to ask why we attack them].
rose-ellen
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:32pmCan’t legislate morality?all law is about legislating morality. Human culture is about legislating morality.Only animals don’t legislate morality. Pl-e-a-se! saying you won‘t kill but it’s okay if someone else does- is like Adam pointing the finger of responsibility and blame on Eve.Are you a man [or woman] or a mouse? You can’t wash your hands of the responsibility to make an ethical choice. You can play at fooling yourself,God and the world[your constituents and the popular culture] but you’re being inauthentic [dishonest].
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:42pm@Rose-Ellen
There is a severe dissonance in our premises of how rights are applied. Firstly to counter your claim of “moral bankruptcy,” libertarians are fairly unique in politics that they can separate their personal morality from how they want to use force (btw this is due to the separation of logic and emotion and is severely lacking in modern politics). We are not so arrogant as to believe that we hold some correct view of absolute morality. I’d refer you to Walter Block for more on this.
And for the record my response was an attack on the theocratic attempts to use government to limit the right to freely enter into contract. I’m sorry but the argument for why abortion, while in most cases is immoral, does not necessarily constitute a violation of rights requires more space than is given in these character limited comments. The quick response is that the unborn child does not have rights outside of the mother. Since the child is unable to provide for itself, nor is capable of the expression of rational thought, it is a part of the mother and all rights associate with it arise from the mother’s rights.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:58pm@Rose-Ellen
The purpose of law is not about the legislation of morality. Popular morality is fluid. It changes over time with changes in religion, prosperity, etc. To govern on such an approach is madness and does not take into account natural rights. If one assumes that the absolute morality cannot be absolutely known, then the next best approach is a system that will allow each individual to pursue what he perceives as morality or good. To maximize this no individual may harm or take the life of another individual regardless of any set of morality. If we tie Lockean property rights into this, we reach a system where the only imperatives are the prohibition of violence against any individuals life, liberty, and property. This is natural law. Look, no claims of knowing the mind of God, and it maximizes the liberty of each man to pursue what he views as the highest good, so long as he does not impede any other man’s pursuit.
Report Post »Stone Cold Truth
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:23pmMarketsClear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:42pm
@Rose-Ellen
There is a severe dissonance in our premises of how rights are applied. Firstly to counter your claim of “moral bankruptcy,” libertarians are fairly unique in politics that they can separate their personal morality from how they want to use force (btw this is due to the separation of logic and emotion and is severely lacking in modern politics). We are not so arrogant as to believe that we hold some correct view of absolute morality. I’d refer you to Walter Block for more on this.
And for the record my response was an attack on the theocratic attempts to use government to limit the right to freely enter into contract. I’m sorry but the argument for why abortion, while in most cases is immoral, does not necessarily constitute a violation of rights requires more space than is given in these character limited comments. The quick response is that the unborn child does not have rights outside of the mother. Since the child is unable to provide for itself, nor is capable of the expression of rational thought, it is a part of the mother and all rights associate with it arise from the mother’s rights.
Report Post »———————————————-
So handicapped people who can’t provide for themselves or who are incapable of the expression of rational thought can be killed at the discretion of their mother or caregivers at any time? How about old people in similar situations? Should we be allowed to
MarketsClear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:42pm@ Stone Cold Truth
Those who cannot provide for themselves have no claim on the property and production of those who can. Any distribution of property to those who cannot provide for themselves can only be seen as charitable gift giving. The withholding of charity can only be seen as an assertion of property rights, regardless of the dependence of the recipient. The use of violence is not justified, but the maintenance of sustenance is not mandated by natural law. Abortion is slightly different because when property rights are asserted, the fetus becomes a trespasser. The only way to feasibly remove the trespasser and restore property rights is through an act of violence.
This may seem cold and heartless, because it is. Logic and the law are not empathic or emotional. They are consistent and are based on precepts that must be followed. If you want a kind society, then you provide the kindness. But if you want a society that is built on the rule of law and respect for property rights, the legal code must be consistent and rational.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:39pmHe doesn’t believe in abortion.THAT’S HIS belief. I get it. He says the government should play NO ROLE in making any decisions related to the issue or fund abortions. I AGREE! What he’s is saying is that he can not PUSH his beliefs on everyone else. I aslo agree! I think it gets tricky for many men when they have to consider the VERY RARE occasion when a WOMAN is raped. It’s hard for them to comprehend what a woman must feel and they feel how she handles that victimization should be her choice. COUNSELING is the key.
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:46amPopular morality IS fluid.Ethics is not. prior to 9-11 most people [in the media at least] would have said trrhat toprture is wrong .After 9-11 the media was full of people professing that torture was not wrong. Why? What Changed in them. When against torture the reason was based on professed universal values[about human beings,justice, cruely etc]When they wanted to torture those professed values gave way to other values[rationals] The reality is the appeals to principals are bogus. Torture was deemed wrong when we ddidn’t feel like torturing.Then we could point fingers at countries that tortured and self righteously express indignation and moral superiority. When after 9-11 we felt like torturing- we rationalized it as moral. All morality is in fact flued-based on likes and dislikes and nothing more. Emotions are where we get our ethics from.The first principle from which all ethics is derived is the do unto others maxim . easy to subcibe too. as we all have emotions.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:37pmPeople are amazing. Their mouth says they don’t want a dictator, but their beliefs and actions speak much louder say they want a dictator.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:07pmIt’s all about accountability. Many people dodge personal responsibility and rely on pointing a finger at a law to justify avoiding judgement.
Report Post »marybethelizabeth
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:36pmTuesday Pat Gray came out in favor of abortion saying if it was a choice between his wife and the newborn he would choose his wife.
Report Post »Follower of the Truth
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:44pmWhen did pat say he supported abortion? The 4th hour? cause i must have missed it.
Report Post »AxelPhantom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:48pmIf my husband and I ever found ourselves in that situation, I would hope he goes with what we always talked about, the baby comes first.
Report Post »BENJAMIN FRANKLIN IS MY IDOL
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:51pmThat is rarely, and I mean very rarely, ever an issue. In fact, even rape as a reason only accounts for about 1% of listed reasons why someone had an abortion. Most of it is people who think the baby or pregnancy “will interfere with their life”.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:54pmSaying if it’s your wife or your baby happens way less than 1% of the time women abort, you can be for abortion when it’s either abort of both die, and still be against abortion as a method of birth control cause someone woman forgets to take the pill, or is under some wacked out misconception that the pill causes them to gain weight.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:22pmThe Catholic Church has ALWAYS recognized that in such situations an abortion is not immoral if it is the ONLY way to save the life of the mother because it is life for life.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:52pmLets say you are correct in what he said. Of course, the husband would choose his wife as then they could have another child down the road; however his wife would most likely choose to save the baby so the husband would have a memory of his wife. Also, the term of the pregnancy must be taken into consideration.There lies the dilemma. The doctor then must try to save both, which places an undue burden on him. There is no correct answer here. Husband wants to save his wife, wife wants to save her baby. Does this situation really hold the same level as abortion, which is a blatant killing of a child when the mother’s life is not in danger? It is not the same in my book.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:36pmCain is a master at saying nothing that others can twist into something they want to hear.
I mean he was against a national sales tax before he was for it.
Report Post »hi
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:59pmWe are going to beat Obama with a Cain!
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:40pmReally, Cain will be lucky if he makes it past the first primary. The 999 plan of tax breaks for the rich is going down in flames. On abortion he is against it, unless he is for someone else’s choice. The guy knows what to say to the Tea Party fools.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:59pmI don’t recall him being for an outright National Sales Tax, but for argument sake he said he was for it. Was he for it in the context of having a NST in addition to the income tax? I think not.
With his 9-9-9 plan, it replaces everything, which is different than in addition too.
So your statements are disingenuous and misleading.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:53pm@Cofemale:
In a column posted on the websites of a number of conservative publications, including The Daily Caller, Cain wrote that�”the worst idea is a�proposed national sales tax, which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes.” http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-17/politics/30288686_1_national-sales-tax-tax-plan-herman-cain#ixzz1bLiE0KNe http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/22/dont-be-vat-stupid/
One of the pillars of Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is a National Sales Tax. You need to study the plan more closely. In states with a sales tax the plan will increase prices on all purchases, otherwise you are just liar for Cain to deflect the critism being directed at his non-sensical plan.
Report Post »hi
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:36pmI believe in aborting the rapist not the innocent baby-kin.
Report Post »netmail
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:46pmme too.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:37pmSO you believe that the women is forced to carry the child of her rapist, that the women has no choice in the matter, the rapists choice is the only one that counted.
Again, another Tea Party member that can not stand freedom and free will.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:59pmEncinom, do you believe the rapist should be free to rape with no state approbation? Of course not. That would be ridiculous. His has free will philosophically, but that doesn’t mean he should be legally free to do whatever he wills. So why should his misuse of his free will justify another misuse? Why should the child pay for his father’s wrong?
Do you not believe in justice as well as liberty?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:55pm@Islesfordian
So you are condeming the victim to nine months where she is forced to continue to live with the results of her rape. Justice does not include the punishment of the victim.
Report Post »ThankBabyJesus
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:54pm@encinom
Report Post »And the victim also being the unborn baby. Do you value human life?
SamAdamslives
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:07pmHa! Castrate all rapists first before aborting them. Cain’s answer is right on; I have chosen his response for some time. Abortion is repulsive. But let the states decide by vote. This keeps federal tax dollars focused on essentials which frees us from the hysterical social arguments which the US gets sidetracked by while we are entering an economic depression, being overrun by terrorists and illegals. Abortion can be defeated. But not everywhere.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:34pm“So you are condeming the victim to nine months where she is forced to continue to live with the results of her rape”
No, I am for not having her compound the crime done to her by adding murder to it. And the “results of her rape” will continue even if she kills the child within her. It’s not like an abortion will erase THAT past. Rather, I think it will make it worse because now she has another horrible thing she must try to forget, but now she will no longer be the innocent party, she will now be the destroyer of an innocent. So in effect, your policy would force her to take the side of her rapist by being a destroyer of innocence. How’s that going to screw up her emotional health?
Also, I don’t call a child the “result of rape”. I call it a CHILD, with all the human dignity that that entails. I also think that loving that child and giving it life is a more psychologically and spiritually healing act than trying to bury the past with an act that she has to pretend is not murder. Eventually she will have to come to terms with that. LOVE is stronger than DEATH.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:03pm@Islesfordian
Again, you pervert justice, the woman can only be the the innocent victim no matter what her choice is. How cna you say condeming a women to nine months of carring a child against her will is justice, how can you say that forcing a woman to look at the product of her rape day after day is healing. Leave the choice to the woman to make, not to a room full of bible thumping men.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:02pm” the woman can only be the the innocent victim no matter what her choice is.”
That sounds like the argument that blacks can’t be racist. So if the woman killing her child is innocent, does that make the child the guilty party. It feels like that is your position. But if they are BOTH innocent, who is MORE innocent? Is the one whose life is getting extinguished a little more innocent than the woman who has “look at the product of her rape day after day” for nine months?
And yopu ask how I can call her beholding her pregnancy healing. It comes through her realisation that there in her womb is another innocent being and that she can respond to it with love. And the act of loving truly casts out the darker emotions. A woman who has something that needs her love, and who gives it love, will feel less guilt and shame over the rape. that is a simple fact attested to by MANY women who have been raped and chosen to love the child. A woman who is raped feels both violated and worthless. Something precious has been taken from her. By recognizing the child as a gift from God rather than a curse she can what her loss is compensated by this precious gift. Grace is a powerful force.
But maybe this means nothing to you. That speaks volumes.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:08pm“By recognizing the child as a gift from God rather than a curse she can what her loss is compensated by this precious gift. Grace is a powerful force.”
So the rape was also a gift from God? The rapist the vechicle of the that gift? Sorry this tortured logic is why I turned my back on the church.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:54pmThat’s very clear. You refuse to understand how God can bring good in spite of evil. But if you can’t see this principle of Grace you make it hard to really understand forgiveness and mercy. There is no mercy in your attitude toward the child. How then can you truly be merciful to the woman. You are just advocating the path of least resistance. It’s easier to throw problems away than fix things.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:29pmIslesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:54pm
That’s very clear. You refuse to understand how God can bring good in spite of evil. But if you can’t see this principle of Grace you make it hard to really understand forgiveness and mercy. There is no mercy in your attitude toward the child. How then can you truly be merciful to the woman. You are just advocating the path of least resistance. It’s easier to throw problems away than fix things.
____________________________________________
To often I have seen this God reward the wicked and punish the just, to often I have seen so called men of god use the bible to justify evil acts and prevent others from striving for something more. Jim Crow laws were justified with the bible, the Serbs used their God to justified the Srebrenica genocide.
haec credam a deo pio, a deo justo, a deo scito?
Report Post »cruciatus in crucem
tuus in terra servus, nuntius fui; officium perfeci.
cruciatus in crucem — eas in crucem
Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:00pmJim Crow laws were NOT justified with the Bible. There is not a single verse from it that could be used to justify racism. Rather, racism was justified by alien philosophy and bad science, twisted Darwinism, and pressed onto the Bible to give it legitimacy among a religious people.
And when have you ever seen God punish the just or reward the wicked? If you read the Bible you would know that he says that his justice may be slow but it is certain. The wicked may prosper in this life but they will not escape punishment at the end. And the just may suffer now, but they will be rewarded in the end. Coming from a God who went to the cross and died for the world, that’s a reasonable argument. If He suffered injustice too why should we complain?
You want a world where the just never suffer and the wicked are always immediately punished? Go make your own. But I’m betting you would be a very cruel and unforgiving god.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:25pm@ENCINOM So, the innocent child has no choice in the matter? The government is to allow the women to end the life of the child that ALSO bears her blood and genes? The only person who had a choice here was the rapist. The victim and the child are innocent. There is only one person responsible for the crime and only one person deserving punishment. Why should two get punished for the evil act of one? The child in the womb has no fault. The rapist made the wrong choice and must bear the consequence, capital punishment. If you forcefully and violently bring a life into this world violating all rights a Women has (dignity, humility, liberty, happiness, innocense) you deserve neither Life nor Liberty. I cherish the Rights and noble postition of Women too much to let a rapist spend his life being taken care of by our tax dollars or be out in 15 years and have the opportunity of doing the same heinous act to another innocent Women. Justice and morality must rule the day. Evil doers must be handed exact judgement. Enough with this liberal sensitive kumbayah lets hold hands with criminals and evil doers nonsense. A rapist violates almost every imaginable virtue and right of a women and commits one of the wosrt and most despicable acts known to mankind and should not be treated kindly or have his action weighed lightly. I do not sympathize with or hold compassion for any rapist.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:58am@ENCINOM Ending the life of a child in the womb is not merely a choice but an atroches and disturbing act. The whole process of aborting a child in the womb goes against very nature and humankind. There must be an action taken to hurt or damage the body of the child in the womb inorder to halt or diminish its existence. The procedure is not done swiftly or without pain. It is horrendous, to me, how anyone in their right mind can go on with such a violent procedure seeing the child bears blood within its own vains and shares our very own resemblence. To think that this wicked act is but a choice for anyone whether woman or man to make is foolishness. To further think that this awful act is acceptable to a society based on principles and values embracing the enjoyment of life and liberty and upholding the concept that all men are by nature equally free and independent is against all that humanity strives for. “By Nature”, is not that child its own entity, having its own body, its own hands, feet, brain, blood, fingers, eyes, heart? Should we not cherish that existence of life, especially when yet developing to become a full grown man or woman within time, no matter the stage it is in? Should an elderly man be considered less human because he is limited in his acts or thoughts? We did not create Man, wherefore we have no choice to decide who is human. Our common blood and image make evident our natural bond, of which that child in the womb is partaker also.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:40am@Islesfordian:
You really need to learn your history, not the twisted history of Beck. Religious defense for racism pre Darwin:
The Rev Benjamin Palmer, leading proslavery advocate before the war, in 1887: “The color line is distinctly drawn by Jehovah himself; it is drawn in nature and in history in such a form as to make it a sin and a crime to undertake to obliterate it. Pointing to the confusion of tongues at Babel as a divine measure to “restrain sin within tolerable bounds,“ Palmer suggested that ”race distinctions were probably developed at the same time, and for the same purpose.” Quoted in C.R. Vaughan, “The Southern General Assembly,” Presbyterian Quarterly 1 (1887-88).
In 1856 Reverend Thomas Stringfellow, a Baptist minister from Culpepper County in Virginia, put the pro-slavery Christian message succinctly in his “A Scriptural View of Slavery:”
…Jesus Christ recognized this institution as one that was lawful among men, and regulated its relative duties… I affirm then, first (and no man denies) that Jesus Christ has not abolished slavery by a prohibitory command; and second, I affirm, he has introduced no new moral principle which can work its destruction…
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:14amPerhaps this wasn’t clear Encinom,
“racism was justified by alien philosophy and bad science, twisted Darwinism, and pressed onto the Bible to give it legitimacy among a religious people.”
This means that the racist interpretations given to the Bible did not naturally flow from either the plain meaning of the text or from any long standing history of interpretation. Racists theories were pressed onto the Bible rather than drawn out of them. This no more discredits the Bible than racist eugenics practived by the Nazis discredits science.
As far as the bible’s acceptance of slavery goes, if you take out the concep to genetic or racial slavery, which proposes that any group of people are NATURALLY slaves, something never accepted in the Bible, than slavery becomes a political situation. All citizens or subjects of ancient nations were captive to some extant to the rulers above them, therefore they were in some degree of what we would call servitude, just as serfs were in the Middle Ages. The gradation from slve to serf to English SUBJECT to FREE citizen of a modern republic is a continuum, for even within slavery there were many gradations, and the Bible forbids the most extreme forms of slavery commanding masters to observe the slaves’s rights, long before Rome modified its practice, something seldom recognized by those who criticize it of approving slavery.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:44am@Islesfordian:
“This means that the racist interpretations given to the Bible did not naturally flow from either the plain meaning of the text or from any long standing history of interpretation.” Notice the quotes, they are pre-Darwin and from Ministers or is your point that Ministers do not know the Bible. I didn’t even began to provide the litany of quotes regarding the son of Ham. Even your defense of slavery shows that you are the one twisting the facts. The bible was written by men at a time slavery was common, hence the Bible mentions it is justified to sell one’s daughter in slavery. Just admit, the Bible can not be taken to deeply.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:56pm“is your point that Ministers do not know the Bible.”
Many do not. My point is that someone just claiming that an idea comes from the Bible does not that idea a biblical one. People are always reading into the texts their own ideas and doctrines derived form elsewhere, just like some judges look into the constitution and see what they want to see there and then call that Constitutional. that doesn’t invalidate the Constitution.
As for slavery again, the Bible clearly doesn’t FORBID slavery, but it is generally silent on all political arrangements. it neither forbids monarchy nor democracy. What is more relevant is that the Bible nowhere COMMANDS slavery. It does regulate and modify it. Thus it leaves it open to the evolution of the Christian understanding of human rights for the abolition of slavery.
The teachings on Ham were never used to justify any form of slavery until slavery was reintroduced into the West. The biblical subject Ham and his descendants was thus hijacked by the pro-slavery crowd. Since abolition the interpretations of Ham have reverted to the original and traditional ones.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:36pmWell it isn’t the governments job to rule one way or the other. Leave it up to the states.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:17pmthat’s the first cohernet and relevant point I have seen you make in two days.
But don’t forget that states are also governments. I assume your “government” meant the Feds.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:11amI sincerely believe that we must return to the Common Law to resolve this issue at a federal or national level. It has already been stated and made clear within its binding and long established Judgements that abortion is an unlawful act. Our departure and current ignorance of that great bulwark of long standing precepts and ancient rights has been the demise and stumbling block for our States and federal Union.
Report Post »ev_mybryan
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:35pmI think that he was pretty clear to me.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:51pmListen to the Stossel bit. Cain is saying totally contradictory things. But I think it’s unintentional. But we can’t clarify it for him. He has to do it. But first he has to recognize how unclear he has been.
This is it in a nutshell: he says that goverment should not be deciding when abortion should be legal. Then he says that abortion should NOT be legal. then he says that a woman’s decision to have an abortion is her decision, not the government’s decision.
That’s pretty confusing. After watching it four or five times the best I can surmise is that he wants it illegal but not harshly enforce the law. But that’s still a little incoherent.
Report Post »jhaydeng
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:35pmWhat is so hard to understand? Cain personally believes in Pro Life, but believes that it is up to the individual to make the choice between the two. If a friend decided to have an abortion I would not stop being a friend! We will get nowhere if we put every comment a person makes under micro scrutiny! Individuals make individual choices that result in consequences good, bad, or indifferent!
Report Post »rose-ellen
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:42pmYou don’t stop being a friend but if abortion is the taking of innocent human live you try to have it banned as illigal!
Report Post »ThoughtCriminal
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:51pmExactly, Jhaydeng! I am a woman and I wholeheartedly agree that if you can’t take care of the child without government assistance, don’t have it.
Report Post »Wonder why society is the way it is? Because of anchor babies, unwanted welfare check children and parents who resent the babies they birthed. It‘s not the government’s decision and children shouldn‘t merely be a check in someone’s pocket either!
I‘ve never been pregnant because I’m not ready to have children. I may never be. Accidents DO happen and hopefully, being married we would make the right choice if put in the situation… But leaving it up to Obama is not the right answer at all!
ruach
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:06pmI agree…..the issue of abortion is not a legal issue…it’s a heart issue.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:24pm“Cain personally believes in Pro Life, ”
It’s not pro-life if you only “personally” believe in it. You have to also support doing something about it. Otherwise who gives a crap WHAT you believe?
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:09amAbortion is an unlawful (only made legal through corrupt politics) and unconstitutional procedure allowed by the Government. Dang right it’s a heart issue. The child in the womb has his own beating heart, his own blood flowing in his own viens, his own fingers and feet, the child is a seperate entity than the mother. It is not part of the mother’s body, as it is not a sixth finger on her hand or tail growing out of her rear end, it’s an individual human life and whole new body growing and developing in her womb.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:35pmThey fear Cain!
Cain/Rubio 2012
TEA!
Report Post »catholiccowboy
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:03pmthats right….let the leftist show us who they fear the most….Cain/Rubio 2012!
Report Post »Crakaveli
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:42pmThe enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:33pmSeems like the Blaze has started their attack of Cain now
Report Post »netmail
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:41pmReporting his stated positions are not necessarilly an “attack” but we shall see.
Report Post »AxelPhantom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:46pmI wouldn’t say they are attacking, more like “vetting” something that is very much needed before we send a candidate to the general election where Obama and the dems will give him/her an endoscopy.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:53pmMaybe they are interested in seeing the Romney/Cain 2012 ticket too??:
“Ann Coulter on Fox & Friends Sunday: Christie will probably not run, now she’s thinking Romney with Cain as V.P.”
http://www.popmodal.com/video/9625
Looks like Cain’s future running mate has the same opinion too:
“Romney on Abortion – 1994″
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeQGObiGGqY
JohnnyMidknight
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:57pmNo, the Blaze is not attacking. The Blaze is being short sighted in assuming an issue as a black and white one. Cain is clear to the intellectually honest about the difference of opinion between religion and science. Religion tells us the fetus is life, however, science contradicts due to the fact that the child can not survive without dependency.
Cain feels that his religion’s teachings should not support the laws that are passed in all cases. If he did, then we are all screwed. For thinking that someone should govern on their faith would allow for Sharia Law. Cain’s position is that of the Libertarian.
Report Post »Lumbar Spine
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:35pmBOOGER71: You don’t like a free and open discussion of ideas and opinions? Herman Cain is running for President. Do we really know him?
Report Post »Fella
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:37pmThat must be why they are hyping him with a new article every few hours. Ridiculous. The Beckerheads are falling for it, too. And I could care less what his stance on abortion is. There is almost no chance of over turning RvW anyhow. This should be a non-issue. There are plenty more reasons not to like Cain than this one.
Report Post »booger71
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:49pmGlenn has consistently downplayed Cain’s influence on the Republican Primary on his radio show
Report Post »TEXASGRANNY73
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:30pm@B71 Obvioously you never listen to the radio and GB. GB stated Cain a true conservative.
Report Post »jb.kibs
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:46pmThere can be only one… ███ ████ 2012.
Report Post »THIS GENERATION
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 2:49pmi believe he is pro-life. he just doesn’t accurately clarify what he is trying to say. It is confusing, that is way most people seem confused. Some like Romney are trying to make it more confusing. It’s his analogy. I wish he’s pick a different analogy.
Report Post »1. on the 9% Federal Sales Tax….that’s Federal only. Like today….we have the Federal Income Tax and the State and Local tax. With the 9% Federal Sales Tax (it just replaces the Federal income tax) you will still have the state and local tax like today.
2.On whatever he said…it come down to every woman has a choice, a God given choice; to have or not have an abortion. To kill or let live. It’s her choice; wrong choice, sinful choice but still ‘her’ choice.
As far as ‘women’s rights’; well no one, men or women has the right to attempt to commit suicide, it’s against the law. So women like men have NO right to take any life; so that argument is dead. What Herman Cain has been trying to say is the it is the woman’s choice right or wrong.
FreedomOnFire
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:25pmEasy, if you listened to Morgan’s question, all Cain said was that its the mothers choice whether to raise the baby or put he/she up for adoption.
Report Post »