October 23, 2011

"It is a liberal canard to say I am personally pro-life, but government should stay out of that decision."

"If that is your view, you are not pro-life, you are pro-having your cake and eating it too."

Said Rick Perry at last night's GOP candidate forum in Iowa. It's a well-crafted line, intended — I presume — to trip up Herman Cain, who just a few days ago delivered up precisely that "canard." He's walking (waddling?) back from the canard, but — as Rick Perry also said last night — "Being pro-life is not a matter of campaign convenience; it is a core conviction."

89 comments:

Jason (the commenter) said...

By that argument Rick Perry is an atheist, because he doesn't want the government to outlaw other religions.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Cain said he won't abuse the constitution by acting outside his presidential authority were he POTUS.

Perry is saying he doesn't give a damn about the rule of law, he will on day one sign an executive order outlawing any abortion, advocacy of abortion, or Hell, even mention of abortion from that day forward.

You take your Bill of Rights and shove it, President Perry seems to be saying.

Ann Althouse said...

"By that argument Rick Perry is an atheist, because he doesn't want the government to outlaw other religions."

I'm sure he wants to outlaw the human sacrifice part of any religion that has human sacrifice as a rite.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Althouse: I'm sure he wants to outlaw the human sacrifice part of any religion that has human sacrifice as a rite.

I wouldn't be so sure. What if the victim is found guilty of a sin by a court of law? A state court! If he were against that he'd be against State's rights.

If Rick Perry is in favor of letting judges and juries decide on who gets the death penalty, then he's anti-death penalty!

MayBee said...

I actually agree that if you are personally pro-life it's impossible to believe government should stay out of that decision.

You could say you are personally pro-life but you realize government is going to stay out of that decision because the law is currently set up that way and it likely won't change

or
You personally find abortion sad/repulsive/awful but government should stay out of that decision.

Those two statements work.

MayBee said...

Oh and what a game last night!

Bart DePalma said...

What I found interesting was that this gathering of Christian conservatives gave their standing ovation to Cain when he pitched the 999 plan. Taxes weren't supposed to be a big issue in this election cycle, especially with this crowd.

Lucien said...

Well, the problem with the vagueness and generality with which the terms "pro life" and "pro choice" are used.

But if "pro choice" means you think women should be allowed to choose to have abortions, and "pro life" means you think women should not have that choice then the difference is pretty clear.

To say you believe that at least some embryos or fetuses have a right to life as persons under the Constitution, but government should nevertheless stay out of it does seem hopelessly muddled.

You can say Roe v. Wade and its progeny were wrongly decided, or more generally, that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion, without thereby taking a stand on the underlying issue of the wrongness, or not, of abortion.

One could also take the position that abortion is wrong, morally, because it destroys a potential human like, but should be allowed legally because it does not destroy an actual human life, with or without also believing (as I think a lot more people ought to consider)that bringing unwanted children into the world is also morally wrong (and legally permissible).

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
America's Politico said...

I was woken up by the Hottie from the K-street super committee working to re-elect our POTUS. Well, she screamed: We won, we won! "What happened?" I asked. She tells me that Parade magazine has put Perry on the cover. The GOP is going after Perry as their nominee. "We got the victory now." She stressed the word, "now".

Well, I agree - thank you, GOP. Please do your best to make Perry the standard-bearer. If you want an alternative, then Cain would be good.

Please do not go for Romney. I will then wake up alone. And, that would not be good.

grackle said...

I’m personally against abortion but am unwilling to have folks put in jail because of abortion. I guess that makes me “muddled.”

Jason (the commenter) said...

I appreciate humbleness, a virtue many Christians seem to no longer value. It takes humbleness to admit the people you disagree with may honestly believe in the things they do, and that their beliefs may in fact be true. Or more importantly, that there may not be a perfect answer to every moral quandary.

Modern people don't value humility. They want to have answers for everything, and they do.

edutcher said...

Ultrasound has apparently changed a lot of minds regarding abortion. In that context, prosecution seems a lot more viable than before, although, if memory serves, only the abortionist was prosecuted - the woman wasn't.

It's a testament, however, to how the Lefties have brainwashed the public about "victimless crimes" and that the unborn child really isn't a person that someone like Herman Cain whom, I presume, was raised with that old-time religion would cavil about punishment.

PETER V. BELLA said...

Politics is all about poltroons. People do not care about pro-life/pro choice. They care about the money.

Money in their pocket to pay the mortgage or the rent. Joe Biden's three letter word- JOBS.

Curious George said...

"Jason (the commenter) said...
By that argument Rick Perry is an atheist, because he doesn't want the government to outlaw other religions."

This is just stupid. I mean painfully stupid.

Perry's argument is a very sound one...why retarded rebuttals like this one are used.

The position of pro-lifers is that the fetus is life...therefore abortion is murder. The government has a role in protecting life...as a matter of fact it's one of it's primary roles.

It's why Althouse takes this "anti abortion/Pro fife" position but can never explain it. All questions to her in this matter go unanswered.

Jason (the commenter) said...

According to Perry's logic, if you don't agree with every one of his policy positions, you shouldn't vote for him. Holding your nose and voting for him is wrong.

That's no way to win an election.

This is just like when he told people who didn't agree with his immigration policy that they were heartless. He's just choosing a different group of people to demonize.

I was a Perry supporter at one point. If he keeps this up, I'd vote for Obama over him.

J said...

mo "ethics" with Althouse and the 20 dwarfs. Edu-grumpy's against abortion, goldangit

Moose said...

You have to keep abortion legal for one reason - women are insane. They'll kill themselves trying to abort their children if they feel the need. If for that reason only we need to keep it legal.

Not a good reason but unfortunately a very real one.

knox said...

Cain's position makes perfect sense. Furthermore, I would guess that it reflects the opinion of most Americans.

It's annoying that they're even talking about it this election cycle.

Jason (the commenter) said...

Curious George: The position of pro-lifers is that the fetus is life...therefore abortion is murder.

So killing an innocent person should require government intervention, but letting an innocent person's soul burn in hell for all eternity (through the teaching of false religions) should not?

Curious George sounds like an atheist, or perhaps an agent of the devil to me!

Canuck said...

agree with Perry. can't figure out what Cain has been trying to say.

"Pro-life" in today's discourse, in the US or in Canada, means you agree with state criminalization and/or state restrictions.

"Pro-choice" usually doesn't indicate one's personal beliefs about abortion, but about the state's role in abortion.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Canuck said...

"So killing an innocent person should require government intervention, but letting an innocent person's soul burn in hell for all eternity (through the teaching of false religions) should not?"

That was Roger William's belief. The Puritians kicked him out of Mass because of it so he left and founded Rhode Island.

somefeller said...

Canard is a French-sounding word that the Rick Perry we know and love in Texas would never use. Clearly, this comment shows he is already under the influence of tea-sipping RINO consultants and speechwriters. His betrayal of the conservative base is just around the corner...

Surfed said...

Abortion is a nasty terrible thing. That being said, if my daughter was raped by some animal masquerading as a human it's a procedure that would be need to be legal. And no apologies for my pro life stance.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
I am personally opposed to SLAVERY, but as aSlavery is LEGAL I will not act outside my powers as POTUS....

How's that grab you? It's the sme thing.

Jason you're stretching...the BABY has no say and no chance to make it to Heaven, with Abortion...

IF, however, it's born and chooses a False Religion, say Episcoplaianism, and burns in H3ll, that's the Baby's/Adult's CHOICE...a huge difference. If you can't see that I can't help you.

You have to be BORN, in order to risk, D@mnation....

garage mahal said...

"Pro-life" in today's discourse, in the US or in Canada, means you agree with state criminalization and/or state restrictions.

Pro lifers don't actually care about the "life" part of it, they want to punish women for having sex. It's always been about that, and only that.

edutcher said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

Curious George: The position of pro-lifers is that the fetus is life...therefore abortion is murder.

So killing an innocent person should require government intervention, but letting an innocent person's soul burn in hell for all eternity (through the teaching of false religions) should not?


"Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion..."

PS Have a hard time believing Jason was ever for Perry.

G Joubert said...

What Curious George said.

It's not difficult to understand. To serious pro-lifers abortion is murder, something not to be countenanced, legally or otherwise. Perry is staking out the serious pro-life position.

Curious George said...

Jason (the commenter) said...
Curious George: The position of pro-lifers is that the fetus is life...therefore abortion is murder.

So killing an innocent person should require government intervention, but letting an innocent person's soul burn in hell for all eternity (through the teaching of false religions) should not?

Curious George sounds like an atheist, or perhaps an agent of the devil to me!"

"Jason (the commenter) said...
According to Perry's logic"

By your logic...well there is no logic in your posts. Why you can't connect the dots. Just more idiotic blathering.

Curious George said...

"edutcher said...

PS Have a hard time believing Jason was ever for Perry."

I'm having a hard time believing he can dress himself in the morning.

J said...

Abortion often prevents pain and suffering (including financial) Jason. Given accidental preg. or failed contraception or health problems, Ab. in the first trimester often is a rational choice. Wouldn't a rational Being (not JoeJoe Schmutz's ...caveman-gott JHVH)--assuming He exists, value that over ..forced birth?

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Pro lifers don't actually care about the "life" part of it, they want to punish women for having sex. It's always been about that, and only that

Sun Tzu if you don't know your enemy, you will have a hard time winning. Garage, it's no wonder you can't win..because all those Cultural COnservatives, they just HATE sex...mayhap in Garage's mind it's all about "repression" I guess that's better than facing up to actually UNDERSTANDING the "Other."

Say, Edutcher, is Pro-Life really a RELIGOUS position? Funny I thought Atheists culd be against MURDER, too...after all even a Materialist, especially a MAterialist, would say "You only get THIS life, to live." And if your life ends in the womb, when does the Materialsit get a chance to live?

DKWalser said...

Perry demonstrated his pro-life chops when he endorsed the pro-choice Al Gore and Dick Gephardt. For Perry, abortion is an important issue -- it can be used for raising money and for smearing your opposition -- but it's not bedrock personal conviction for him. Otherwise, he wouldn't endorse pro-choice candidates when otherwise suitable pro-life candidates were available.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)
Abortion often prevents pain and suffering (including financial) Jason

So does Infanticide, or Genocide, or Cannabalism....

edutcher said...

DKWalser said...

Perry demonstrated his pro-life chops when he endorsed the pro-choice Al Gore and Dick Gephardt. For Perry, abortion is an important issue -- it can be used for raising money and for smearing your opposition -- but it's not bedrock personal conviction for him. Otherwise, he wouldn't endorse pro-choice candidates when otherwise suitable pro-life candidates were available.

He was also a Democrat then.

Democrats treat people who don't tow the anti-abortion line the way real Americans treat treason.

mariner said...

MayBee,
You could say you are personally pro-life but you realize government is going to stay out of that decision because the law is currently set up that way and it likely won't change

Except that government DOESN'T stay out of it -- government is forcing Catholic doctors and nurses to perform abortions in Catholic hospitals.

Government is cramming religion down people's throats.

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

Perry demonstrated his pro-life chops when he endorsed the pro-choice Al Gore and Dick Gephardt...Otherwise, he wouldn't endorse pro-choice candidates when otherwise suitable pro-life candidates were available.

Don't forget Rudy Giuliani in 2008. And he uses Frenchie words like canard! The betrayal is so near you can taste it...

garage mahal said...

Mitt Romney SPEAKS French!

Just wow.

J said...

J said...
The fetus is the mother's property as well, at least until viable--the economic approach should appeal to you JoeJoe Levitical. Unplanned--say she can prove the birth control--she can't afford it--ergo, suck it on out.

Or it's the state's property..and you don't want that approach. And what of deformities ala Downs Syndrome, as with Palin's Trig.? She had an obligation to abort. She failed.

Andy R. said...

The problem is that as much as Cain wants to be a big old pander bear in the primary, he doesn't actually know how to do it because he isn't well-versed enough in wingnut "theology".

See also: "right-of-return".

edutcher said...

mariner said...

MayBee,
You could say you are personally pro-life but you realize government is going to stay out of that decision because the law is currently set up that way and it likely won't change

Except that government DOESN'T stay out of it -- government is forcing Catholic doctors and nurses to perform abortions in Catholic hospitals.

Government is cramming religion down people's throats.


No, it's cramming violation of their First Amendment rights down their throats.

J said...

That won't help Monsieur Romney, eh. There are some...hushhush rumors about the Mittster's mission in france as well, garag

Cedarford said...

Bart DePalma said...
What I found interesting was that this gathering of Christian conservatives gave their standing ovation to Cain when he pitched the 999 plan. Taxes weren't supposed to be a big issue in this election cycle, especially with this crowd.
=================

That crowd tends to go with their hearts, not their brains. Same people that fell hysterically in love with Alan Keyes and early on, Michelle Bachmann.

C R Krieger said...

With around 80-85% of the population being against abortion as an act and a like percent being for legalized abortion as a freedom, I think Herman Cain sits with the majority, unlike Gov Perry.

Regards  —  Cliff

J said...

That crowd tends to go with their hearts, not their brains.


you mean Amerikans, Herr Cedarford

garage mahal said...

It would be hilarious if at a debate the moderator says:

"Mitt, you're next: In your opening one minute please tell us why you should be elected President. In French"

garage mahal said...

Awkward!

Jason (the commenter) said...

edutcher: PS Have a hard time believing Jason was ever for Perry.

I came into this election cycle with an open mind, and have watched all the debates. First I was for Pawlenty, then Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Romney, and now Newt.

Looking at how the polls have been going I think I'm pretty represtative of the average Republican voter.

Phil 3:14 said...

Jason;
I appreciate humbleness, a virtue many Christians seem to no longer value.

WOW. Setting aside the veracity of that claim, are you speaking of all Christians or just politicians who publically profess a Christians. If the latter, isn't a lack of humility an asset in politics?

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Jason (the commenter) said...

edutcher: PS Have a hard time believing Jason was ever for Perry.

I came into this election cycle with an open mind, and have watched all the debates. First I was for Pawlenty, then Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Romney, and now Newt.

Looking at how the polls have been going I think I'm pretty represtative of the average Republican voter.


No, it sounds like Jason doesn't understand that Republicans actually think about who the best choice might be, while he's been seduced by Hopenchange.

J said...

The fetus is the mother's property as well, at least until viable--the economic approach should appeal to you JoeJoe Levitical. Unplanned--say she can prove the birth control--she can't afford it--ergo, suck it on out.

Or it's the state's property..and you don't want that approach. And what of deformities ala Downs Syndrome, as with Palin's Trig.? She had an obligation to abort. She failed.


So, it seems, did J's.

Andy R. said...

The problem is that as much as Cain wants to be a big old pander bear in the primary, he doesn't actually know how to do it because he isn't well-versed enough in wingnut "theology".

See also: "right-of-return".


See also: the Navy provides the Marines with Corpsemen.

See also: the Union Pacific and Central Pacific formed the Intercontinental Railroad.

Phil 3:14 said...

Call me stupid, but every so often I think Garage will go beyond stridency. And then something like this appears:

Pro lifers don't actually care about the "life" part of it, they want to punish women for having sex. It's always been about that, and only that.

Yeah, I was stupid.

EDH said...

I'm a pro-choice extremist.

You should be able to kill your children right-up until the time they move out of your basement.

Alan said...

Where is the principled Conservative position?

The one that says yes, i believe abortion is murder, but it is also not a matter for the Federal government.
That the enumerated powers of the Federal government do not include power to either restrict or liberalize availability of abortion.
The one that says I will work to return issues of the legal status of abortion to the state legislatures, where it belongs.
The one that recognizes that states are sovereign in all matters, but for the very narrow range of issues delegated to the Federal government.

I know, the Feds have metastasized into a cancer, and the limits have been ignored. But the only way to put the monster back into its cage is to stop feeding it (to stop making things Federal issues, when we don't like the idea of states doing other than what we want them to do)

jimbino said...

Cain's position is not so strange. Most Christianists give lip-service to the Ten Commandments, yet few would be in favor of laws punishing swearing, coveting, staying home from church and failure to honor your mother and father.

Cain needs to stick it to Perry.

Mitochondri-Allie said...

Jason the Commenter is on to something.

edutcher said...

It's called Lefty propaganda.

Chuck66 said...

There were northern politicians in the 1940s who had the same view about the civil rights of blacks in the old south. They were personally pro-civil rights, but didn't think it was their business to stick their noses in southern affairs.

And I am that way about smoking. Iam personally anti-smoking, but support your right to light one up.

Chuck66 said...

Alan, that is close to my position. I am pro-life, but don't think the federal government should be involved, pro or anti. That is what is so wrong with the Roe vs Wade decision. But also what is wrong with hard-core pro-lifer activists.

Let each state decide what their laws should be.

garage mahal said...

Phil
It's hard to take a movement seriously that says it's the government's role to protect a fetus for nine months, but the government's role ends the day the fetus is born. What changed? The baby is just as vulnerable at one day or one month removed from the womb. Unless you think it can hunt or gather at one month? Or one year. Or 10 years.

edutcher said...

garage doesn't get it.

It's the government's job to make sure no murders are committed. And to punish those guilty if a murder is committed.

The welfare of the child is the parents' responsibility.

Not the other way around.

(one might think these basic moral precepts aren't beyond most Demos, but...)

Mitochondri-Allie said...

Eddutcher said, "The welfare of the child is the parents responsibility".

Precisely, that include before birth.

Chip S. said...

The Second Fundamental Law of Comment Threads: The number of comments is inversely proportional to the probability that any commenter's opinion will be modified as a consequence of that thread.

Joe said...

This is merely evidence that Perry isn't a conservative at all, but a anti-abortion liberal.

Is IS liberalism to say that the government should stay out of lives unless it's something we really believe in.

The true conservative position is that the government should interfere with personal liberty to the minimal extent possible while maintaining a safe society.

"Yeah, but this is different," is siren call of liberals.

Lucien said...

Folks who are "pro life" mostly do not believe you could go out and kill a live born human if it were discovered that they were conceived in incest or rape, but mostly would allow abortion in those situations.

Folks who are "pro choice" often support punishing people who attack a pregnant woman, and kill her fetus, with homicide laws.

If there were more focus on the common ground of thinking that fetuses beyond some stage of development do not have all the rights that live born humans do, but are a heck of a lot more important than hunks of meat, the debate and discourse might yield more light & less heat.

Regrettably, the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this area polarizes folks by encouraging thinking in terms of near-absolute rights like life or personal physical autonomy & privacy.

Lucien said...

BTW -- apparently, a majority of abortions are obtained by women who are already mothers.

This suggests that making them view sonograms is rather pointless, since they have gone through the whole process of giving birth & know what is involved.

It also suggests, though one doesn't want to assume, that they are having abortions relatively early in their pregnancies.

Canuck said...

"I came into this election cycle with an open mind, and have watched all the debates. First I was for Pawlenty, then Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Romney, and now Newt."

Wow -- but I knew people were having a hard time making up their minds.

I think in the end it will be Romney, with a possibility of Perry. Right now I think Perry is being underestimated. He's got enough time (and money) if he stops screwing up so badly.

More on topic: two things surprise me. A lot of people who call themselves pro-life are ok with legal abortion pre-12 weeks.

A second thing that surprises me: very few people who identify as pro-life are concerned about IVF and the regularly destroyed embryos. More embryos are fertilized then can be safely implanted. The lesser quality embryos are destroyed and the better embryos are frozen (many of which are later destroyed). I'm not sure if people don't care because the embryos are so young, or if people are just unaware.

Jane said...

Do you people not get it? I'm anti-adultery but don't believe that the government should get involved. At the same time, I'm anti-domestic violence, and believe that it's a criminal act. The first is a matter of a personal relationship where the harm is that of hurt feelings; the latter is a matter of actual physical violence. Same with abortion -- it's not a matter of hurt feelings, but an actual human life.

I suspect that most people who indentify as "pro-choice" think of an unborn child as roughly similar in moral worth to a pet -- one shouldn't go about tormenting pets, but it's appropriate to put one's own pet to sleep under certain circumstances, and in even more circumstances is it OK to euthanize animals in an overfilled shelter. (Also the notion of having "property rights" fits here.) Even so, I've never heard of anyone saying they're pro-choice on the issue of animal torture, or being personally opposed to euthanizing shelter pets.

Here's what I fundamentally don't understand, though: prochoice "personally opposed" types obviously don't think abortion is the intentional killing of a human life, because they wouldn't be OK with that as long as they don't participate. So why are they opposed to abortion, then?

And the statement "Pro lifers don't actually care about the "life" part of it, they want to punish women for having sex. It's always been about that, and only that." -- that's laughable. Never in 42 years have I heard even the most rabid prolife activist say anything remotely like that. These accusations have got cause and effect backwards.

Freeman Hunt said...

He is right.

It's as silly as saying, "I am personally anti-slavery, but government should stay out of that decision." But then, there used to be plenty of people who felt exactly that way.

"I am personally anti-murder, but government should stay out of that decision."

When the subject is killing people, that kind of talk is a little weird.

gutless said...

Old Herman is about done. Better now than later.

Chip S. said...

It's as silly as saying, "I am personally anti-slavery, but government should stay out of that decision."

So it would be silly for a government that recognized slavery as legal to pass laws regarding the treatment of slaves? How about legalizing manumission? What about leaving slavery intact where it was currently legal but preventing its spread to newly admitted states?

Y'know, not even "murder" is a crystal-clear legal concept, as far as I can tell from watching courtroom dramas.

Joe said...

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)


So it would be silly for a government that recognized slavery as legal to pass laws regarding the treatment of slaves? How about legalizing manumission? What about leaving slavery intact where it was currently legal but preventing its spread to newly admitted states

OF COURSE because that approach worked so well post-1850.....I mean really what could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah the CIVIL WAR...so I guess your example shows the drawback to your suggested approach.

ken in sc said...

Garage is wrong about pro-lifers. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University has a special program for students who become pregnant out of wedlock. They are not punished or ostracized in any way. They continue their education and are encouraged to put the child up for adoption, in which the school assists. I know this because it happened within my family. BTW, the child was multiracial.

n.n said...

The issue of abortion follows from society's decision to confer dignity to a human life.

The only objective measure of human life begins with development from conception, which without suffering natural or artificial intervention, will eventually emerge as an optimally independent human being.

I would consider it reasonable to permit a mother to decide the fate of her child in the event she suffers from involuntary exploitation or her life is mortally threatened. However, all efforts should be pursued to preserve the nascent life; and, in case the decision is made to terminate the life, then it should follow closely with conception.

While the goal of enlightenment (recognition and respect for individual dignity) has not yet been realized, it should remain the principle which guides our development. It is society's responsibility to promote normalization of productive behaviors, with respect to both the natural and enlightened orders. It is undeniable that without acceptance of moral knowledge, a society cannot permit individual liberty, and it will demand progressive concessions as individuals demonstrate an inability to self-moderate their behavior.

The issue of abortion is fundamentally concerned with assignment of dignity to a human life. As it was with slavery, this issue is also a moral imperative, which society cannot ignore.

Chip S. said...

so I guess your example shows the drawback to your suggested approach.

Or, y'know, maybe it shows that people who insist on getting 100% of what they want bring on civil war.

But go ahead and keep saying pro-choice people are advocating murder. It's proven highly persuasive, quite evidently.

Curious George said...

"garage mahal said...
Phil
It's hard to take a movement seriously that says it's the government's role to protect a fetus for nine months, but the government's role ends the day the fetus is born. What changed? The baby is just as vulnerable at one day or one month removed from the womb. Unless you think it can hunt or gather at one month? Or one year. Or 10 years." This is more garage bullshit. First, it's not the Pro Lifes position that it's the governments role to protect the fetus...It's that it's the governments role to punish the murder of the fetus. And that role never changes regarding the taking of life.

it's hard to take someone serious who is so intellectual dishonest, or stupid, or both.

traditionalguy said...

The Amendment to the Constitution to overturn Roe comes first. Herman says he will sign that if the House and Senate do the 2/3 votes for that. Then the States by 3/4s must ratify it. Then the States will do what each vote for next.

Your turn Rick.

The inside DC line is that Cain cannot get any consideration of 9-9-9 because it can be defeated by a 30 second add lying that it "raises taxes."

Both Cain on abortion and Cain on 9-9-9 have been declared death blows to the candidacy by Fox News guys.

Some body had better alert the voters who are about to elect the smartest man in the race.

Why don't the usual lies work on Herman Cain???

cubanbob said...

@Jane said...

I have yet to see a pregnant woman who wanted to have the child refer to the fetus as a fetus, but rather she will always refer to it as the baby. Now if she didn't want it then it just a fetus.

@ Chip S. said...

I'm sure you would have been cool with slavery back in 1860, why push for a civil war and all. Seriously, you really believe that if Roe was overturned and abortion was made illegal throughout the country that would result in a civil war?

Chip S. said...

@cubanbob--I'm not the one who brought up the "abortion is like slavery" argument; go argue with somebody who pushes that line. I'm just saying that even when it comes to something like slavery there are ways in which each side can compromise if they want to. Or they can fight/argue interminably.

But are you seriously arguing that abortion is not a totally divisive issue, partly because the most strident people on each side have dug in to essentially all-or-nothing positions that demonize their opponents? Do you not think it's why feminism is coterminous with liberalism? Don't you think that women's distrust of Palin on abortion is a principal reason for their dislike of her?

This does not apply to people who simply think that Roe was wrongly decided, or who think that abortion law is more properly a state matter. I'm talking about the "abortion is murder/slavery" position.

Cedarford said...

CAnuck - "I think in the end it will be Romney, with a possibility of Perry. Right now I think Perry is being underestimated. He's got enough time (and money) if he stops screwing up so badly."

True. Never underestimate the appeal of a Southern evangelical of limited IQ to other Southern evangelicals of limited IQ.

That is why Perry can drool his way through debates and be as angry and incoherent as the treacherous McCain, and it won't bother "The Base".

Better Perry is killed off quick by the next Alan Keyes (Cain), who then hopefully destructs as well..just as long as he doesn't get the nomination like Keyes did and then destructed while running against Obama.

If the Republicans finish this off fast, the media that wants the Big Horserace!! will be sorely disappointed, but that will give the Republicans more time to get around their eventual nominee and work against Obama and do the level of fundraising they will need against the billion-dollar man of Wall Steet and wealthy progressive Jews.

David R. Graham said...

"Have your cake and eat it too is." is a near universal misstatement. Anyone can have their cake and eat it too. It's done daily all over town. First you have it, then you eat it. Easy. The impossible thing is to eat your cake and have it too. That's the actual statement: "[So-and-so] wants to eat their cake and have it too." Meaning, never experience loss. That, of course, is impossible. Like saying one wants to live their life and have it all over to live again, indefinitely. I do not know why popular usage gets the quote and point exactly backwards and thereby vitiates the meaning.

Steve Koch said...

The critical question is when does a not yet born baby become human? Once a not yet born baby is human then aborting it is murder.

There is no doubt that a not yet born baby is human 1 nanosecond before birth.

You could take a probabilistic approach and say there is a 0% probability that one nanosecond after fertilization that the embryo is human (I say this for the sake of argument, I have no proof that embryo is not human).

10% of the way through the pregnancy there is a 10% chance that the not yet born baby is human. 50% of the way through the pregnancy there is a 50% chance that the not yet born baby is human. And so on.

There are a lot of abortions(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html):

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]
• In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled.

Using the probability distribution as an example, the expected value for the number of murders in the USA from abortion is surprisingly high. For example if the average abortion occurs two months into the pregnancy, the expected value of murders would be 2/9 times over a million abortions. That works out to more than 220,000 murders per year from abortion.

We really should have figured out, as a society, a reasonable definition for when a not yet born baby becomes human before we started aborting babies.

murgatroyd666 said...

We really should have figured out, as a society, a reasonable definition for when a not yet born baby becomes human before we started aborting babies.

Does anyone know of a church that holds funerals for miscarriages?

Kirk Parker said...

garage,

That's On Beyond Deranged. Nobody outside the Peter Singer wing of the left wants to change the fact that killing a child who's already outside the womb is murder.

Dan in Philly said...

I am personally against murdering your wife, but I don't think it's the place of government to interfere what goes on in the privacy of a man's home...

John Lynch said...

If you think it should be legal you are objectively pro-choice. For politicians it's how they vote, not what they agonize about in private, that matters.

End of story.

Akai_Tsuki said...

I’m personally against abortion but am unwilling to have folks put in jail because of abortion. I guess that makes me “muddled.”
car accessoriesPenthouse Frankfurt