You conveniently didn’t comment on the fact that children are raped either by strangers or incest and get pregnant. Would you force a pregnancy on a mere child? This is a decision for a family not for you, me or a government to make and I believe that is what Cain was talking about.

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Arguing like a liberal 101: Pick an extreme and rare, but emotional, case, and base your entire argument on it.

The first and obvious question is, how old of a child? “Child” as defined by the federal government can go all the way to age 26 now.

Obviously, there’s no substantive reason to treat the rape of a 24-year old woman as any different from the rape of any other adult. But the whole point is to use the ambiguity of “child” to paint opponents to exceptions for rape and incest as heartless.

Meanwhile, this case is used to argue for the destruction of inconvenient human life. Which seems far more “heartless” to me.

Killing a child because the mother was raped is not logical or moral. The only exceptions should be when the life of the mother has to be weighed against the life of the child. Or, in practical terms, tubal pregnancies that never stood a chance of live birth anyway.

If we’re going to torpedo Cain for being pro-choice, we deserve Marxist tyranny.

elfman on October 20, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Best comment of the week. I couldn’t agree with you more.

Our side needs to wake up and have some guts and not be afraid. Or we deserve the coming Obama disaster or the slow ruination of our country with moderates.

I’m all for examining and criticizing our candidates. But when it gets ridiculous or goes too far, then we are just eating our own.

It’s one thing to question his experience or 999 plan. It’s another to pretend he isn’t 100% prolife or say he isn’t intelligent or capable.

Punchenko lacks the attention span of a cultist, believing whatever the media narrative is within 6 hours of its initiation, and ignoring all clarifying data afterward.

It is best not to waste your time with him.

BKennedy

I found him to be nothing more than a troll. How f’d up is somone who makes a point to go on EVERY Cain thread to bash him?
I’m wondering if it’s really about race with punchenko.

Not if you’re the family of the young girl in question – or the girl herself. Such things are only irrelevant in theory.

whatcat on October 20, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Which means you only object to abortion because you want to punish loose women, and don’t consider the fetus to have rights. Otherwise, you would be arguing that it is always permissible, rather than coming up with exceptions.

“Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.

My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.

As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100 percent pro-life. End of story.

I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.

I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.“

You conveniently didn’t comment on the fact that children are raped either by strangers or incest and get pregnant. Would you force a pregnancy on a mere child? This is a decision for a family not for you, me or a government to make and I believe that is what Cain was talking about.

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:34 PM

No, I did comment on that.
Such considerations are irrelevant.
Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Not if you’re the family of the young girl in question – or the girl herself. Such things are only irrelevant in theory.

We had some people in this thread saying Cain was getting a pass cuz he’s black.

lorien1973 on October 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

So? How is that racist?
quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM

As it is, without anything offered to substantiate the claim – for example, a GOP leader saying “He’s black, lets give him a pass” – it is a purely race-based opinion.

You conveniently didn’t comment on the fact that children are raped either by strangers or incest and get pregnant. Would you force a pregnancy on a mere child? This is a decision for a family not for you, me or a government to make and I believe that is what Cain was talking about.

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:34 PM

No, I did comment on that.
Such considerations are irrelevant. If you want a rape victim to be able to get an abortion, then clearly you do not think the fetus in question is a person — which is something that should not depend on the nature of it’s conception. As such, the remedy is that the time of personhood has to be pushed back for all fetuses in order to accommodate the that case.

Punchenko lacks the attention span of a cultist, believing whatever the media narrative is within 6 hours of its initiation, and ignoring all clarifying data afterwards.

BKennedy on October 20, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Is that what we call Cain’s flip-flops? Are we calling them… clarifying data?

So when Mitt offers up a new position out of political necessity — much like what Cain is doing now on a daily basis — we call it “clarifying data”. You must be one of the paid Hacks for Herman, BKennedy — either that or shill pushing him to help Romney.

What a joke.

Pablo Honey on October 20, 2011 at 5:59 PM

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Abortion is not freedom – it is desperation on full display. A woman wants an abortion like an animal wants out of a trap. It will gnaw its own leg off to be free. Anyone who has seen the emotional, physical and spiritual devastation from abortion will know what I mean.

I understand the emotion behind these difficult examples, which are always trod out when abortion is at issue. But the facts from PP itself show that abortions from all of these types of cases combined account for a very small percentage of all the abortions they perform.
These examples are a way to scare people into believing that abortion is necessary in desperate cases. Most people are scared about how they would react in these circumstances, so it is easy to prey upon their fear in order to make the case for abortion. Rape and incest are a horrible violent tragedy and the women who suffer deserve more than platitudes that an abortion will make it all okay, when actually it will just add to the victimization.

The circumstances of a baby’s conception do nothing to dehumanize the baby or changes the brutality of what happens in an abortion.

If abortions are allowed in the case of incest or rape, then disallowing one at the same level of gestation and danger to the mother is simply tyranny. Once you have determined that the child is old enough to have a right to live that overrides the mother’s license to kill it, the crimes of it’s father do not figure into consideration.
Otherwise, you are simply saying that you wish to punish loose women rather than protecting the life of an unborn child.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 6:22 PM

You conveniently didn’t comment on the fact that children are raped either by strangers or incest and get pregnant. Would you force a pregnancy on a mere child? This is a decision for a family not for you, me or a government to make and I believe that is what Cain was talking about.

Just to remind everyone:

An innocent person (a fetus) has no right to endanger a woman’s life or health if she was forced into that condition.

In case anyone forgets, pregnancy can be dangerous. It can do permanent damage to a woman. Someone attempting to harm you, whether innocent or not, has no right to do so and can be repelled with deadly force. This includes a fetus.

scotash on October 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

A woman’s body is made for pregnancy and benefits her health in many ways. To compare pregnancy with the actual violence done to a woman’s body through abortion is hideous. Yes, even in the violence of rape, having a full-term pregnancy is much safer for the woman in question than having an abortion. To say otherwise is ignorance. But that’s what we get from PP and the other women’s “rights” groups who wish to keep us ignorant, shamed and afraid.

quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

These statements are not inconsistent. The crux is that some pregnancies are dangerous to the mother, while most are not, and the level of danger can usually be determined early on.

Grown women aren’t the only ones who get raped. Little girls get raped and get pregnant. Are some of you actually saying that a little girl of 10 should not have an abortion?

I see exactly where Cain is coming from. For me personally, I’m against abortion and he says the same. However, I’m not going to tell a woman or a child that they can’t have an abortion due to rape or incest. Why is that so hard to understand?

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM

If abortions are allowed in the case of incest or rape, then disallowing one at the same level of gestation and danger to the mother is simply tyranny. Once you have determined that the child is old enough to have a right to live that overrides the mother’s license to kill it, the crimes of it’s father do not figure into consideration.
Otherwise, you are simply saying that you wish to punish loose women rather than protecting the life of an unborn child.