That was pretty much the point of my initial post: people like blueraider_mike see no distinction, and without some serious partisan mental gymnastics, they can’t arrive at any other conclusion that Cain’s comments, before “clarification,” can be viewed as anything but pro-abortion (remember, it’s relatively rare anyway, so why make such a big deal over it?).
I think it’s an absurd conclusion to draw, that one can’t be both anti-abortion personally, but reluctantly pro-choice politically–there’s a reason people like me oppose abstinence-only sex-ed, which is all but guaranteed to increase the pregnancy and abortion rates–but make no mistake, those people are out there, and they will determine who wins the GOP nomination. Guaranteed.
“Just like its not our job to tell two men they cant have sex, or how to spend your pay check, or how to worship etc…”
Let’s be honest and not try to equate abortion to any of a number of lifestyleissues. Abortion involves the ending of a life. There is considerable debate about when that life begins, when it can be termed a human life, etc, but this isn’t in the same league as controlling worship practices or discretionary spending.
There is considerable debate about when that life begins, when it can be termed a human life, etc, but this isn’t in the same league as controlling worship practices or discretionary spending.
Ill grant you that it is more muddled and more emotionally charged but to say they are levels of the same question.
My personal feeling is that we should do all we can to eliminate the NEED for abortions, but leave women the option for unforeseen and or unavoidable situations - and this is why its more muddled… it really is a more complex and layered issue than the others mentioned (both in terms of causes and outcomes for all involved), but my feeling is that when in doubt default to personal choice
"Ill grant you that it is more muddled and more emotionally charged but to say they are levels of the same question.
My personal feeling is that we should do all we can to eliminate the NEED for abortions, but leave women the option for unforeseen and or unavoidable situations - and this is why its more muddled… it really is a more complex and layered issue than the others mentioned (both in terms of causes and outcomes for all involved), but my feeling is that when in doubt default to personal choice "
I think the difference is more than just emotion. The difference is that there is, potentially, another human life in the mix for abortion, and that life doesn’t get a say. So depending on the crcumstances and timing and your definition of when human life begins, it’s not just a personal choice for the woman regarding her body. It’s also a choice being made on behalf of the growing human life. That brings a different level of discussion than some of the other items you mentioned where it’s really just personal choice impacting no one but yourself.
(CNN) - The campaign of Herman Cain again worked to clarify his stance on abortion Thursday night after the GOP presidential candidate raised new questions at a Texas campaign stop when he said he was “pro-life, no exceptions.”
The “no exceptions” phrase seemed to contradict statements Cain recently made, suggesting abortion rights should be a family’s decision when it came to cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in danger.
The campaign attempted to spell out his views Thursday in a statement obtained by CNN, but did not address any exceptions.
“I am pro-life, and believe in advancing the culture of life. My record as a pro-life candidate speaks for itself,†Cain said in a statement. “Anyone who says differently is simply not telling the truth. Next question.”
When pressed by CNN on his position, however, a campaign adviser said Cain follows the same policy used by the George W. Bush administration, which said abortions should be allowed in the instances of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at stake.
Let’s be honest and not try to equate abortion to any of a number of lifestyleissues. Abortion involves the ending of a life. There is considerable debate about when that life begins, when it can be termed a human life, etc, but this isn’t in the same league as controlling worship practices or discretionary spending.
This may be a suprise but we are on the same page. This is an issue where government needs to be invovled. Abortion is an act that affects a human life in a degree far greater than most acts, because of this there needs to be clear mandate on the circumstances involved. I do not believe it should be illegal, however the same mistake Canada has made should not occur.
Agree there is a disconnect between pro life no exceptions, and the GWB position. He’s certainly not the smooth pol, but he’s also not seen the drop in polling you (and I) presaged.
