I have great respect for Elizabeth Scalia who blogs under the name The Anchoress. She is always well reasoned and has thought through every thing she writes. She is a very religious, thoughtful Catholic who lives her life in the most spirit filled way she can. If you need prayer she prays for you. I’ve called on her for my family a number of times. She says praying for others enriches her. I am sure it does, she really cares.
In this post she addresses the issue of Herman Cain and what he has said on abortion. Read it. You may not agree, but she knows all the issues around that argument and tells you what she thinks. Cain should watch his step, he wouldn’t want to get the Anchoress completely down on him.
SECOND Thoughts on Cain: Maddeningly Gray – UPDATE
The post is long so here are some excerpts:
Okay, so the other day I posted my First Thoughts on Herman Cain.
Culled from Cain’s recent remarks about abortion, gay marriage and Jesus-as-Conservative, here are some second thoughts:
Cain’s “I’m pro-life but pro-choice” is getting a lot of attention:
It is actually a brand name of viagra online in uk . A large number of people these days have generic viagra australia started to offer another method of making the payments. The uterus or the womb itself might not be conducive for carrying a child. cialis buy online Practical advice Income and education are shown unica-web.com cipla generic cialis to increase blood flow and can increase your libido in hours.
…it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.Cain is dancing very close, here, to the Mario Cuomo/Ted Kennedy Big Book O’ Corkscrew Logic, and its famous dictum — upon which so many have tried to have it both ways on abortion — “I am personally opposed to abortion but cannot impose my views on others.”
Now here begins her discussion on the moral and legal issues of abortion and gay marriage. Here is where it gets very interesting and involved. This is what you need to read in its entirely, and it is long.
This is how she wraps it up.
Which suggests to me that a more important question than whether a president is “pro-life enough” is “what sort of justice would he nominate? After all, Bush 43 was the most pro-life president, ever, and his party even controlled both houses for a little while, but even the partial birth abortion ban they managed to sign into law got shunted into the court system before a single child could be saved.
A president who claims to be pro-life, but subject to law and precedent is not a bad choice for pro-lifers, if he can be trusted to name the right sort of jurist. The next president — don’t forget this, because it’s urgent — will likely name 2 or even three SCOTUS justices and shape the court for coming decades.
But then there is more and the update she headlines. Just go READ IT. Like I said she covers it all. But the truth is the president we choose is going to name supreme court, and lower court justices, we need to make sure they are not of a liberal bent. They must be conservatives who believe in and want to preserve original intent of the constitution.
