Posted on 10/20/2011 1:38:34 AM PDT by grassboots.org
I Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, hen follow him. And the people answered him not a word.
Herman Cain can't make up his mind whether he is pro-life or pro-abortion. He wants to ride the fence, so let's let him. But I have two suggestions for what to call his position.
First, Unprincipled Pro-Abortion. I don't mean unprincipled and pro-abortion. I mean unprincipled pro-abortion. He is pro-abortion for sure, but not on principle, but rather on purely pragmatic grounds. This will never do for those who (like The Fonz) can't bring themselves to ever say the word "b-b-b-b-a.... Fetus." Cain is no Barack Obama, who never met a single baby that ought to be protected, even one already outside the womb, once that baby has been declared a choice. But Cain is different, more nuanced. He can go long stretches without the pro-life community even noticing he is not one of them. No pro-abort of principle would ever be found hanging out with pro-lifers.
Second, Ineffectively Pro-Life. Just as Mitt Romney loves to say he was "effectively pro-choice", rather than (really) pro-choice, Cain says he is pro-life, but as the transcript below seems to indicate, would not lift one finger to actually stop abortion. He mouths the words, but his true intent is elsewhere. Cain has joined a growing number of supposedly pro-life candidates (like Gingrich, Romney and Perry) who are really pro-choice. The only thing Cain has going for him is that he finally admitted it (kinda). In an interview with Piers Morgan
(Excerpt) Read more at caffeinatedthoughts.com ...
Hmmm, it sounds like he was playing with Morgan. Morgan didn’t really press him on this. A president is not dictator. I’m not sure Cain’s position is any different than Reagan’s.
Cain was asked about a pregnancy resulting from rape:
“”MORGAN: ...If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?
CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?
MORGAN: Why?
CAIN: You’re mixing –
MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.
CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidence, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is 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 have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.””
Now is no time to play. If Reagan’s position was the same as Cain’s, then Reagan was wrong.
Without Life, there is no Liberty, no Pursuit of Happiness. Not to mention the blessing of Provenance!
Hands up those that think G_d loves baby killers.
This is the issue in the sand. Without respect for the creation of Life, there is no respect for anything else. What is theft/abuse/corruption, compared to murder?
“Cain was asked about a pregnancy resulting from rape”
I grant that as a possibility, but what does the fact that the child’s father was a rapist have anything to do with whose “role it is”? Every bit of the language Cain used for this one motive for abortion could be used for many reasons of abortion: “sensitive issue” “not the government’d decision”, “the family’s call”, etc.
Keyes tried what?
Cain: “So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.”
If that’s what he really said, it sure sounds pro-choice to me. That’s not necessarily the same thing as pro-abort, but it’s close.
Life, liberty & pursuit of happiness starts with unborn life
The Founding Fathers got it right. The Founding Fathers got it right because of those fundamental principles: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They also got it in the right order. That wasn’t an accident. Their vision meant that you could pursue happiness in America as long as you don’t infringe upon the liberties of somebody else. And you can pursue all the liberties that you want as long as you don’t infringe upon the life of anybody else. And that starts with the life of the unborn.
Source: , May 1, 2011
Defund Planned Parenthood; intent was to kill black babies
I absolutely would defund Planned Parenthood—not because I don’t believe in planning parenthood, [but because] Planned Parenthood as an organization is an absolute farce on the American people.
People who know the history of Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood, they know that the intention was not to help young women who get pregnant to plan their parenthood. No—it was a sham to be able to kill black babies.
Source: Interview on the Bryan Fischer radio show , Jan 18, 2011
Life begins at conception, period
I believe that life begins at conception, period. And that means that I will have to see enough evidence that someone I would appoint shares that same view. I believe that the current Supreme Court is leaning too much to the liberal side.
I’m a Christian, I’ve been a Christian all my life. I’ve been a believer in the Bible since I was 10 years old. I’m very active in my church, and there is no way I would compromise my religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. And so it starts with, will they have demonstrated, in some of their other rulings, if they come from the federal judge bench, whether or not they also share that.
Because I believe that the principles that our Founding Fathers cherished, when they founded this country, and wrote the Declaration of Independence which inspired the Constitution, they were based upon biblical principles. I want to get back to those principles as president, if I run and get elected—not rewrite those documents.
Source: Interview on the Bryan Fischer radio show , Jan 18, 2011
You don’t even know what Cain’s position. So you think Reagan could have signed an executive order making abortion illegal?
What’s worse, a possibly pro-choice candidate or Obama? That’s the question you need to be asking yourselves. A possibly pro-choice president can always modify his position.
Obama will not modify his social agenda. If anything, re-election will only further it. He and his affiliates are giving away the farm and steadily pushing us into Third World status. Based on this, the answer to the question above is, for me, an easy one. Obama must go.
I thought Cain’s position on the matter was perfect.
He is personally against abortion, but doesn’t see it as the government’s place to force his personal views upon others—rather, it’s a decision each individual/family must make on their own.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/
I am not trying to be stubborn here, but I also recognize that politicians usually parse their words. I did not notice Cain, in the interview you cited ever saying that he would actually outlaw abortion, i.e., make it illegal. Could you point me to some place where he ever said he should make it illegal?
If he meant anything other than he is against the government interfering in abortion, then he just became the worst communicator since, since, since..... Rick Perry.
It is always better the girl knows she is loved and supported rather than dictated from on high. People do not seem to understand that the culture of abortion will take decades to change.
Let us Conservatives keeping looking for Elijah the prophet to put forward as the nominee.
He’ll never get elected, but boy, won’t we feel good about ourselves.
Irrelevant to my post what Reagan woulda, coulda, shoulda done.
“What’s worse, a possibly pro-choice candidate or Obama?”
Those are my only choices?
“He is personally against abortion, but doesn’t see it as the government’s place to force his personal views upon others”
It is a meaningless position. It is the position of Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and a host of other politicians unwilling to lift a finger to defend unborn children. It is the position of nearly every person who wants to maintain the law as it is.
The culture you suggest will be changed as the law is changed. While the law cannot save, it is a teacher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.