bzip is spot on. Cain is a great story of self-reliance and he’s exactly what our party is all about from that perspective. He should be celebrated and plugged in as a cheerleader for our side. He’s great at that and he’s far less toxic than say, oh I don’t know, a certain former governor of Alaska.

But he’s not presidential material. State senate? Sure. House of representatives? Why not? But he’s not even senatorial or gubernatorial material, much less presidential.

This was always going to be Romney v. Perry. The real question is that now that Cain’s bubble has burst, does all the Cain love flow back to Perry or did he hurt himself too much out of the gate?

Abortion after rape is giving the innocent child the death sentence for the crime of the father.

My husband was adopted. We found out shortly after we were married, after he met his birth mother for the first time, that she had been raped by his biological father. She gave that baby boy a name and put him up for adoption without ever looking at him.

A year later, when we had our first born, a son, we gave him the name she gave my husband, to honor her for choosing life. She was thrilled! We’ve stayed in touch, and now she has three more grandkids and a clear conscience! And the world didn’t miss out on a great guy and award-winning inner-city high school teacher like my husband.

I think the quibble with Perry’s immigration issue is completely legitimate. The argument that you have to turn the magnets off and build a fence is a good one.

That being said, I can overlook one or two disagreements on this type of policy. I can’t overlook something like what Cain just said.

It looks like Morgan is making the assumption that if the mother doesn’t raise the child then the only alternative is abortion. While Cain’s answer is about whether the mother keeps the child or puts it up for adoption.

Doesn’t look to me like there is anything to disqualify Cain on the basis on his attitude toward abortion. This is just miscommunication, not an indication of a prochoice issue.

Back down to Bachmann territory of less than 7%.

But since you provided the transcript it looks like the notion that Cain is pro choice is pretty inaccurate.

Didn’t you get the Hotair/Corner/romneyshill memo?

You’re not supposed to look at what Cain actually said. You’re not supposed to look at his platform. You’re just supposed to take his words out of context and make him look silly.

After all, there’s no one more consistent than an unprincipled republican zelig willing to say and do anything to become the nominee. We would never want a real human being in the white house. Such a person might actually…do something.

correct. I say this as someone who leans towards Perry. It is not 100% clear that Cain was speaking of abortion. Morgan was firing different questions rapidly and Cain very well could have been speaking of adoption. That does not mean that it is not a problem for Cain. I think it was a terrible gaffe.

But up to this point, Cain has been solidly pro-life and I find it hard to believe that he would flip-flop now. I might also point out that someone who is trying to pander to others does not answer the question prior to the abortion question the way that he did. He took a very unpopular view on that issue accotding to the secular world. Why would he be squishy on abortion?

That being said, I do think that Leon raises some important questions. We need to do some digging into Cain’s statements since that is our primary metric for vetting him. He definitely neecs to clarify what he was referring to. Until then, there will be speculation (justifiably so) on what is viewpoints really are.

Morgan’s question was “If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?” And Cain correctly pointed out that Morgan was mixing up two things: (a) do you agree that abortion is a valid choice in the event of pregnancy caused by rape? and (b) would you want her to bring that baby up (i.e., no abortion!) as her own?

It was the latter question that Cain answered.

And in general, conservatives have to realize something: the problem with principles is that they sometimes conflict and you have to take stands that reconcile them. Cain consistently makes it clear that certain things involve personal moral decisions, he knows where he stands as to those decisions, but he does not think government should be legislating and enforcing morality. Granted, the abortion issue blurs some of those lines: abortion involves killing a being that has done no wrong (unlike the death penalty), and in a state like California can be done simply because the mother wants it done, which is obscene.

But there is no way of knowing how they will rule or if they will get a chance to rule on abortion. People thought Justice Souter and Justice Kennedy would be pro-life.

And there are legal scholars and judges that are pro-choice, but believe the choice jurisprudence is terrible and should be overruled.

Also, there are pro-life scholars and judges that believe the Roe/Casey opinions are wrong, but that they are settled law.

Furthermore, overruling Roe/Casey does not abolish abortion. It just sends it to the states where plenty of states will make it legal.

Given all of this, why should I make pro-life the litmus test for a President? Picking Supreme Court justices will not outlaw abortion. Nor is it clear that the justices selected will be pro-life or even if they are they might not overrule precedent.

If you want all abortion illegal in all 50 states, the Supreme Court is not your hope. The constitutional amendment process is your hope. The President can’t do much for that.

Rick Perry from RS support because the state director of RickPerry.org was quoted as saying thatt Perry is pro-life with exceptions for rape incest and life of the mother?

I hope not because I want to continue to see discussion about Perry and Cain here.

And for the record, I am pro-life.

All overturning Roe v. Wade does, is return the issue back to the states, each of which can then decide for themselves. That’s how things were before the Roe v. Wade ruling.

It will be a cold day in hell when lefty states like VT and MA ban abortion.

To ban abortion nationwide would require a Constitutional Amendment.

That needs to be understood up front. Assuming a President could pick SCOTUS nominees that he/she KNEW would vote to overrule the Roe and its progeny (which is pretty much impossible given how we confirm these cats), that still does not outlaw abortion. It would become a state issue and plenty of states would legalize abortion and people from states where it was illegal would travel to the states where it was legal meaning that very few abortions would be prevented.

The way to outlaw abortion is the constitutional amendment process, of which, the President has little influence.

This election just seems too important to me for us to disqualify conservatives on fiscal issues because of a personal position on abortion.

As I said above, there is not much that can be done by the President on abortion. (the SCOTUS position does not hold water when evaluated). The President has a great deal of influence over our economy (e.g., BHO).

I’d think that would be a more productive use of your time than trying to engage in a threadjack.

abortion, Perry and immigration would be a threadjack.

Perhaps you could ask all the other sites to take it off and not discuss it;

http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/10/19/video-so-what-im-saying-is-it-ultimately-gets-down-to-a-choice-that-that-family-or-that-mother-has-to-make/

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/

…..no…text….

is why I have absolute respect for the site, its editors, and its leadership. Abortion has been our genocide and I respect the fact the site has a conviction with no equivocations and demands it staff believe the same on this very important matter.

Kudos!

He’s clearly talking about the case of rape, not abortion generally. I do not mind some of you supporting Perry, but you ought not to put up deceitful headlines about other candidates.

Just out of curiosity, is it actually policy that you have to oppose rape/incest exclusions in abortion laws to be a front pager at RedState?

I’ve been a member of this site since early 2008, I’ve seen people come and go with the BLAM stick, or the BANHAMMER…

This site is very tolerant, as long as the opposing views are respectful.

The Editors are quite thoughtful in their responses, and are willing to put themselves out there in a very open way, that other sites are not. I mean where do you see Editors and Authors directly engaging in the commentary?

There are well meaning candi-bots and some are just clueless… In either case they will do well to remember that discussions are just that, if something was put on the front page here by an Editor… its likely very worthy of discussion.

1st Mr. Wolf wasn’t lying, he’s calling into question Mr. Cain’s commitment to the Pro-Life cause as a politician.

Clearly his position is not acceptable to the Pro-Life cause, even if you’re suggesting that a “majority of Americans agree with him on” the instances of rape or incest…

Even if there are a “majority” it doesn’t make it right, to which I’d like to see some evidence on that claim from you…

Abortion is an evil practice. It destroys life. It destroys more than just the innocent life that was aborted even in cases of rape or incest. If as you suggest the Majority of Americans are “ok” with this… then look what abortion has done to our society. If you are right, then our society is morally bankrupt, what does that say about candidates that would prefer moral bankruptcy than standing up and telling people THIS IS WRONG.

See why this discussion is important?

at the conclusion that Leon is lying, though I’d be amiss if I didn’t advise you that making such a statement is a very poor evolutionary strategy, because abortion is abortion.

from a couple of days ago contradicting the quote from yesterday doesn’t make a real strong case that Cain is a serious candidate.

If he is one, then he’s the least experienced, and with plans that change almost daily.

No thanks.

based on Herman’s OTHER answers to the SAME question, his clear position is pro-life, no exceptions—but when pressed he is simply saying that in response to the LIBERAL mindset that “of course the one raped would want to abort”…that that is not for anyone else to say…i.e. if the family wants to keep the child why do you have a problem with that, even to the point of enforcing it by law..
This continual attacking Cain with the inability to both understand simple conversations and to searchlight any apparent “gaffe” (and he has no problem admitting so called “gaffes”)…when other candidates NEVER do…is the reason why we just may end up nomination the either of the TWO BIGGEST CHARLATAN “MIS-SPEAKERS” on that stage (Romney/Perry)…we just don call it that because they never acknowledge stuff and are “electable”…SO SAD…

.

He was asked if he was *personally* pro-choice or pro-life.

Before we decide whether Cain is a viable candidate, don’t you think we should ask him about the Supreme Court first?

This is really a very simple issue. It isn’t one that we are going to debate on this thread, however.

only a life of the mother exception but certainly understand the rape exception.

I’m sorry, streiff, but you are illustrating perfectly the rigidly dogmatic extreme pro-life stance that is impossible to retail to anyone but those in the same rigidly dogmatic extreme pro-life camp.

It’s all nice to refuse to debate the issue, but in doing so you’ve precisely illustrated my point: The rigidly dogmatic extreme pro-life faction views women of child-bearing age to be nothing more than walking incubators. Period. End of line.

How depressing. How are conservatives supposed to refudiate the liberal smears when you are perfectly content to embody them? Why can’t you at least cop to your view that the rights of the unborn supersede the rights of the born and that any woman who finds herself pregnant for whatever reason – carelessness (no contraception used), accident (contraceptive failure), rape or incest (self-explanatory) – is obligated to carry her pregnancy to term, no ifs, ands, or buts? It would be an extreme view to many, but rather than hide behind the babies, why not admit what protecting those babies requires?

I’m shocked at how blinkered some of these comments are. It’s clear that the usual “rape, incest, life of mother” exceptions are a small fraction being used to justify the 99% (or whatever percentage) of abortions that are elective for whatever reason (i.e. can’t afford, don’t want, etc.) But a rigid stance of, “You let a man in you and these are the consequences of your choices,” is staggering in its cruelty. I’m guessing that every one of you posting is male. Yikes. Way to be the ugliest stereotype of conservatives possible.

Is it wrong for the unborn to be casually tossed away because the mother can’t be troubled with carrying it to term? Absolutely! BUT..,and this is the point that almost everyone refuses to step up to…the only solution to protecting unborn life is to commandeer the bodies of the women those babies are residing in. A woman’s right to control her body – the basis which the pro-death side uses in their argument – is being sacrificed in the name of what again? To protect life? What about the mother’s life? If some poor 16-year-old girl is raped by her mom’s boyfriend and knocked up, how is it anything but monstrous cruelty to tell her, “Sorry that you’re going to have to go through 280 days of reminders of that night when he forced himself upon you, but the preciousness of that innocent baby requires that you just cope with it.”

BTW, I’m not trying to change the views of the rigid militant extremist pro-life people here. I’m just asking that they step up and admit that the result of their radical pro-life views is that the woman’s life is nothing more than to be a brood mare. Until we have the means of transplanting fetuses from the conceptual host to a surrogate or mechanical substitute, it would be nice if the ugly business of enslaving women to carry children they don’t want was admitted to.

Just admit it: The unborn are more valuable than the women they’re in.

How hard is it for those who believe as much in their rhetoric to explicate this in so many words? Don’t dance around the subject and mumble about how the choice is simple and not worthy of debate. JUST ADMIT IT!

The common law definition of “homicide” was “death of a human being caused by another”, and at common law a fetus was not a “human being” until it had “quickened”, i.e., was a life sustainable outside of the womb.

California’s homicide statute (Penal Code187) was changed to read “death of a human being, or a fetus” after a case in which a man savagely beat his girlfriend in order to get rid of the fetus, but his conviction was reversed because California still went by the common law rule.

So under PC 187 it was murder to cause the death of a fetus. Then came the Therapeutic Abortion Act and the statute was again amended to exclude deaths of a fetus by procedures under that act, then procedures by a qualified medical practitioner, and ultimately to abortions done simply because the mother wanted it.

So California demonstrates the schizophrenia: a fetus is a life worthy of legal protection unless the mother doesn’t want to protect it. I am still waiting for anyone to point to any other situation in which causing the death of a human life is excused on the grounds of personal convenience.

All that said, I think it should remain a state-level issue. I think the President should appoint justices to SCOTUS who reject the notion of a federal Constitutional right to privacy. I think the President should be someone who can use the “bully pulpit” to articulate and explain the fundamental morality involved. I think Herman Cain can do all of that.

Rather than a slogan masquerading as a plan. As Cain keeps showing he hasn’t really thought this through, as well as making gaffe after gaffe, that support won’t be there.

I wanted to like Cain, but he just isn’t ready for prime time.

and btw I listened to the whole interview. Indeed he was answering a specific case that involves rape and incest but he chose to go the extra mile to state “The government has no business dictating morality”. Why did he have to say that? This is what he should’ve said: I’m for govt intervention except in cases of rape/incest, simple! Instead he chose to take the banana/apple ideology route! This is the main difference between pro-lifers (belief govt should intervene to save life) and pro-choicers & libertarians like Ron Paul (govt has no business in abortion issues). Some are interpreting his statement to mean that govt can dictate morality in any situation that doesn’t involve rape and incest. Unfortunately, he didn’t give that clarification and I can bet this will be re-visited soon in an interview. Am sure then he will chose different words when he clarifies and says that government should intervene in certain moral situations!

If we go too far in one direction, government defines who lives and dies, based on government-established standards. If we go too far in the other direction, we end up with a situation like the one that existed back in day so prohibition. Somewhere in the middle is where we need to be, and personally, I’d choose right of center rather than left of center. In other words, I don’t want government involved in this issue any more than absolutely necessary. I think that for government to fund abortions at the taxpayer’s expense is wrong. I do believe that abortion is morally wrong under any circumstances. So, I’ll just have to evaluate various elements of the different comments Cain has made and then go from there.

But after reading a few articles during the past week, and not just at RS mind you, it’s become rather obvious that it is next to impossible for authors of various articles to keep their own personal biases out of what they write. Perhaps it’s just unrealistic to expect them to do so. But it is making it difficult for people who are just looking for facts without all the commentary. It would be simpler if they said “here is this bit of information” and then said “here is my viewpoint and opinion”, but that isn’t what they do.

(Sigh) That’s more or less what has caused me to reach the point of deciding that I’d just have to do the research on my own rather than take things on blind faith at face value.

Choosing Perry, I mean. I’ve not been able to shake my first impression of Perry, which stems, ironically enough, from his “heartless” comment. No, I wasn’t offended by it. What was conveyed, implied and insinuated, not only in what he said but also how he said it, was that he made a public policy decision based on his “heart”. When I started thinking about how that might translate to a national level if he was elected President, then it became problematic from my viewpoint, because unemployment is high, a lot of people are out jobs, losing their homes, etc. Will he make decisions based on his “heart” where those things are concerned? I just don’t seeing that as being what our nation needs right now.

As to media seeing to it that Cain will implode, they definitely seem to be trying their hardest to do that, I agree. I guess it depends on how many people have moved over into the “I’ll make up my own mind” column and don’t let media influence the choice they make.

But I want to take this opportunity to say thank you for being straight up with me last week, Justin. It wasn’t until then that I started recognizing just how naive I was being about the whole thing.

for the moment as well.

It really comes down to a question of reasonable presumption based on the expertise of the attending physician, further informed by professional experience.

Unless we are dealing with axiomatic, mathematical truths or necessary deductions in the field of pure logic, nobody operates from a condition of a 100% certainty. However, as in all things, reasonable judgments have to be made, otherwise we would all stand paralyzed with inaction.

The physician performing the procedure to save the mother’s life does so based on the reasonable belief (itself predicated on a set of specific, medically acknowledged, credible dangers to the mother’s life) that the mother will die, untreated.

Now, is he or she 100% certain that death will result without treatment? No. But the physician does not have that epistemological luxury to resort to inaction, paralyzed in search of a level of certitude empirical science simply cannot provide by its very nature and limitations.

However, overwhelming scientific/medical evidence, coupled with the practices the physician has been schooled in, provide for a qualified presumption of strong probabilities that the mother will die if not treated.

In closing with the issue of “certitude” you brought up, txindependent, and rightly so, what’s really at issue is MORAL certitude, which does not require one to be empowered with “100% scientific certitude” (which, as I had indicated above, is an impossibility due to the very limits of scientific inquiry itself–bereft as it is . . . and admittedly so . . . of any direct “predictive” powers other than where the question of probabilities may take it).

As for moral certitude . . . YES . . . based on what his or her professional training and experience indicate, the treating physician must be morally certain that the surgical procedure is both necessary and just. That is, he or she cannot engage in it in a frame of mind that entertains the least bit of legitimate doubt (to be distinguished from mere psychological anxiety) as to the salutary purpose and timing of the procedure.

Only if you don’t want Cain to win does it really matter.

He and Romney were the only 2 to not sign it. I wonder why.

If he is trying to be too clever by half with these answers or if he really has no clue about the political ramifications of these questions and his answers.

I understand that abortion is a tricky issue for politicians. There isn’t really a position that isn’t going to alienate large groups of potential voters, However, this is hardly a new issue or one where any semi-conscious candidate hasn’t worked out what their position is going to be.

Cain has to be the first pol in recent memory who has answered multiple abortion questions and left me without absolutely no clue what his position (from a public policiy/governing standpoint) is. Frankly, I don’t really care about his personal views. I just wanna know what stands he would take (while governing) on the issue. If he isn’t prepared to answer that question, he has no business being in a primary for the Republican nomination. Sheesh.

He is starting to look like the ideal VP choice for Romney. Both of them seem to like being all things to all people by taking every possible position on every possible issue.

You constantly write front page threads ripping into Cain or his ideas.

You desperately want him to fail. It goes beyond “vetting” and into trying to discredit and persuade others into not supporting him.

Can’t you prop up Perry without having to tear down others who split his support?

And yes, I’ll defend Cain, but this pile on is ridiculous and unobjective.

Look downthread a little – here.

Would you hire a Muslim?

Is the fence electrified or not?

Would you swap a US solider for all the Gitmo prisoners?

How many times will you modify the 999 plan?

Is the 9% National Sales Tax now a converted payroll tax?

If Congress wanted 10-10-10 what would you do?

Do you now understand what the “Right of Return” is?

Do you now understand what a neoconservative is?

Do you know the history of Taiwan and where it is located?

Do you have video or photo proof of Perry’s alleged racist rock?

Would you accept a VP nomination from Romney?

Who would you vote for if it turns out to be Perry vs. Obama in 2012?

If you lose the election will you go to work at FOX?

Do you prefer Apples or Oranges?

Cain’s tweet is consistent with everything he has ever said about his stand on abortion, this is the only confusing piece of evidence there is.

I admit the line of questioning makes it sound like he was back-tracking if you only look it quickly. But its inconsistent with everything else he has ever said, and even what he in response to the very first question about abortion.

The failure of this diary to address that inconsistency is my complaint.

*We* all knew that Obama was lying when he said “you can keep your doctor/insurance/etc”. He was consistent with that narrative, and we knew he was lying because of what we did know about the legislation (that nobody except Betsy McCaughey read).

Not a valid comparison. One has, to my knowledge, always been on the side of pro-life, and the other has always said whatever was expedient.

or the story? That’s okay, I’ll do it.

Interestingly, when Cain did run for senate, he made abortion a key issue in his campaign. According to The Atlantic, Cain focused on the fact that Johnny Isakson supported allowing abortions in cases of rape, incest, and the mother’s life, while the only exception Cain was comfortable with was when the mother’s life was endangered. When Isakson (then a House member) voted for allowing overseas military hospitals to offer abortions, Cain (along with Mac Collins, who was also running for the Georgia Senate seat), was endorsed by Georgia Right to Life.

When Cain talked about abortion on Meet the Press Sunday, he had the same position as he did in 2004: he does not want abortion legal in cases of rape or incest, and when it comes to cases where the mother’s life is endangered, he wants the family to decide what to do.