Herman Cain is schizophrenic?

[mangxema]

Being personally pro-life but political pro-choice isn't a schizophrenic decision -- it's perfectly possible, and even reasonable, to separate the morality of a decision from a desire to have the government use the force of law to enforce your morality on others.

The problem is that Herman Cain can't seem to express his views clearly at all. He says it's a woman's choice if she has an abortion, but abortion shouldn't be legal. I'm really not sure what he's saying at all. But that seems to be well in line with his "method" of debating in general, which is to say repeating contradictory, illogical statements that sound kinda good but don't really make sense.

That's my general thinking, although strictly speaking I don't think morality necessarily has anything to do with that sort of argument. I'd use the same arguments for legalizing pot, but that's not a moral decision, just me saying that I don't think that I'd ever be interested in it personally.

Could it be a shout-out to State's Rights, just bungled?

Possibly, although strictly speaking I think that argument is more like Individuals' Rights.

 

[Perfection]

Maybe he was trying to say something that would actually make logical sense (even if it'd be disagreeable), like one of these two things. But we'd have to assume that, because it's not what he actually said. What he actually said was that abortion should be both legal and illegal.

Wow, typically if it comes between a CFC member and a presidential candidate I can assume the candidate makes sense.

Herman Cain is more vile then I thought possible.

 

[Winner]

Why do you link abortion with religion? Surely if one views a fetus as a living human being, then abortion would be murder in their eyes, yes? Nothing religious about that stance at all. But hey, if the only way you can denigrate someone with those views is to paint them as religious extremists, be my guest. Europeans are quite good at religious intolerance, so it's really no surprise.

(yeah, playing the arrogate american again...never gets old to bash on eurotrash)

But I agree that there was no reason to drag religion into this.

I disagree - although opposition to things like abortion can be based on secular moral views, a VAST majority of opponents of this practice are against it for religious reasons. Which includes all the republican candidates, I suppose, since none of them misses an opportunity to flaunt their deep faith.

So I am just sayin', leave to our Lord...

 

[useless]

Back Street Abortions, obviously.

 

[bhsup]

I disagree - although opposition to things like abortion can be based on secular moral views, a VAST majority of opponents of this practice are against it for religious reasons. Which includes all the republican candidates, I suppose, since none of them misses an opportunity to flaunt their deep faith.

So I am just sayin', leave to our Lord...

What religious view, specifically, are they adhering to? Other than a general "innocent life is precious", which is hardly a religious reason, I can't really think of one. The only way to view innocent life being precious as a religious stance is if you think all non-religious people don't care about innocent life. Personally, I don't accept that.

 

[useless]

What religious view, specifically, are they adhering to? Other than a general "innocent life is precious", which is hardly a religious reason, I can't really think of one. The only way to view innocent life being precious as a religious stance is if you think all non-religious people don't care about innocent life. Personally, I don't accept that.

Well considering that they profess that it's because of their religion that they object... It's easy to see how religion can be tied into the issue.

 

[Artifis]

Being personally pro-life but political pro-choice isn't a schizophrenic decision -- it's perfectly possible, and even reasonable, to separate the morality of a decision from a desire to have the government use the force of law to enforce your morality on others.

This.

The guy just doesn't know how to say it well.

 

[Leoreth]

What religious view, specifically, are they adhering to? Other than a general "innocent life is precious", which is hardly a religious reason, I can't really think of one. The only way to view innocent life being precious as a religious stance is if you think all non-religious people don't care about innocent life. Personally, I don't accept that.

Well, I think everybody agrees with that. The question is more when human life begins, at which point Christians put forth their position that life begins at conception because that's when we start to have souls.

This.

The guy just doesn't know how to say it well.

I can't really believe that you think this because he literally said "it should not be legal".

 

[katipunero]

This.

The guy just doesn't know how to say it well.

how does Herman Cain plan to translate some of his conceptually challenged ideas into a workable policy then?

saying and proposing contradictory statements are the privilege of private individuals not running for public office. but Cain, frontrunner and aspirant, cannot claim immunity away from his irreconcilable positions to abortion or anything of consequence just by saying that he separates questions of morality from questions about the role of government. it has to be one over the other. you cannot choose to conceive and birth a child and abort it too.

 

[ParkCungHee]

If someone wants to write a comic about Batman going around and inspecting women's uteruses, I would totally buy a copy.

Razor the Hedgehog -"Don't worry, she's not pregnet. I checked."

 

[Winner]

What religious view, specifically, are they adhering to? Other than a general "innocent life is precious", which is hardly a religious reason, I can't really think of one. The only way to view innocent life being precious as a religious stance is if you think all non-religious people don't care about innocent life. Personally, I don't accept that.

Come on.

Well, I think everybody agrees with that. The question is more when human life begins, at which point Christians put forth their position that life begins at conception because that's when we start to have souls.

Well, I too believe that human life begins at conception. I just don't think there is any moral or rational reason to extra protect it until very advanced stages of pregnancy.

As it happens, religious people believe in all that nonsense about immortal souls etc. which leads them to behave irrationally and force their views on others.

So again, if they believe in God so firmly that they just know He doesn't like when we murder pieces of tissue that might later become babies, they should leave it up to God to punish the murderers and sinners. Why should they legislate against it? How does an abortion harm other people, except the not-to-be-mothers? It's between them and God, and if these religious guys are so sure abortion is a sin and God hates it, they should STFU and leave Him to do something about it.

 

[Artifis]

I can't really believe that you think this because he literally said "it should not be legal".

how does Herman Cain plan to translate some of his conceptually challenged ideas into a workable policy then?

saying and proposing contradictory statements are the privilege of private individuals not running for public office. but Cain, frontrunner and aspirant, cannot claim immunity away from his irreconcilable positions to abortion or anything of consequence just by saying that he separates questions of morality from questions about the role of government. it has to be one over the other. you cannot choose to conceive and birth a child and abort it too.

Okay, first off I cannot claim to speak for Cain. But I can claim to try understanding what he meant to say.

I believe he is personally against abortion, and that if he had things his way he would make abortion illegal. However, he realises that by living in a society with differing values he cannot force his version of what's right and wrong down others' throats.

Therefore although he would rather ban abortion, he sees the political (and possibly practical) folly of trying such a thing.

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, I can see where you come from. Then he's just not very good at communication.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Herman Cain is a well known motivational speaker, and rely on that to make his living.

He is not a scholar or a real politician like Ron Paul.

 

[katipunero]

Okay, first off I cannot claim to speak for Cain. But I can claim to try understanding what he meant to say.

I believe he is personally against abortion, and that if he had things his way he would make abortion illegal. However, he realises that by living in a society with differing values he cannot force his version of what's right and wrong down others' throats.

Therefore although he would rather ban abortion, he sees the political (and possibly practical) folly of trying such a thing.

people vote people into office on the basis of what the candidate will do once elected, not what for things one will rather have done but in the end would not do because of political expediency.

Herman Cain minced no words with his 9-9-9 plan and stuck to this version of a tax reform sweep, despite opposition from all quarters, without batting an eyelasjh.

we've seen how he can stand up firmly for his beliefs come what may no matter the political consequences. why can't he do the same with something so simple as whether he is pro-choice or pro-life?

his two-faced stance is simply an indicator of his level of preparedness coming into the presidential race. a serious contender should really be clear on his legislative agenda and everything else so voters have something to rely on as basis for giving away their votes.

 

[useless]

He is not a scholar or a real politician like Ron Paul.

You cannot be serious, Ron Paul is a joke, a husk of a man.

 

[NickyJ]

Well considering that the issue's been hijacked by the American Religious right, it's not really much of a jump to link the issue with religion.

Wait, religious people saying something is wrong automatically makes them hijackers?

I disagree - although opposition to things like abortion can be based on secular moral views, a VAST majority of opponents of this practice are against it for religious reasons.

Incorrect. I will make the assumption that you think that randomly killing people is murder, even if you are not religious. Likewise, I find the killing of babies to be murder. Is that really so religious?

Which includes all the republican candidates, I suppose, since none of them misses an opportunity to flaunt their deep faith.

Ah, so now we're going to use stereotypes. Wonderful.

What religious view, specifically, are they adhering to? Other than a general "innocent life is precious", which is hardly a religious reason, I can't really think of one. The only way to view innocent life being precious as a religious stance is if you think all non-religious people don't care about innocent life. Personally, I don't accept that.

Precisely.

Well considering that they profess that it's because of their religion that they object... It's easy to see how religion can be tied into the issue.

Oh goody, more stereotyping!

Well, I think everybody agrees with that. The question is more when human life begins, at which point Christians put forth their position that life begins at conception because that's when we start to have souls.

My being a Christian has no effect on when I think life begins. Life begins at conception because that is when the baby begins to grow.

Well, I too believe that human life begins at conception. I just don't think there is any moral or rational reason to extra protect it until very advanced stages of pregnancy.

You consider the taking of human life to be murder unless in cases of self-defense to be murder, right? Bam, that's what abortion is in a nutshell.

As it happens, religious people believe in all that nonsense about immortal souls etc. which leads them to behave irrationally and force their views on others.

As I said, I'm a religious person, and "immortal souls etc." has no meaning to me when dealing with abortions. Quite frankly, I've never heard anyone use that as a reason.

 

[say1988]

people vote people into office on the basis of what the candidate will do once elected, not what for things one will rather have done but in the end would not do because of political expediency.

Herman Cain minced no words with his 9-9-9 plan and stuck to this version of a tax reform sweep, despite opposition from all quarters, without batting an eyelasjh.

we've seen how he can stand up firmly for his beliefs come what may no matter the political consequences. why can't he do the same with something so simple as whether he is pro-choice or pro-life?

his two-faced stance is simply an indicator of his level of preparedness coming into the presidential race. a serious contender should really be clear on his legislative agenda and everything else so voters have something to rely on as basis for giving away their votes.

Because he never intended to be a serious contender. It was a PR stunt to sell books. The 999 plan was to get him oublicity before he faded into nothingness. Now that he somehow jumped into the lead he has nothing on any other aspect of the job and so he just throws out a bunch of common talking points.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

You cannot be serious, Ron Paul is a joke, a husk of a man.

I don't agree with all his positions, nor am I a Ron Paul supporter at all. I just think that the way he present himself, is far more politician-like than any of the candidates on the GOP primary.

What I mean by what is a politician, is a person who is honest in his views on any given subject, and is willing to set aside personal attacks and other things that are entirely irrelevant in what they are supposed to do: that is to present a detailed platform with specific goals and let the voters decide whether it is agreeable to them, not what the majority do with their soundbites and misleading rhetoric.

 

[Cutlass]

Well, I guess that would answer the question of whether he's pro-choice or pro-life...

Maybe he's a libertarian. They can be against abortion personally, and not believe it's the government's job to interfere with it.