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 ...
No, but the in the polling booth choice will obviously be between Obama and someone else. Again, not hard for me to decide.
Lol. Alright, find me one candidate who has vowed to make abortion illegal. Apparently that’s the only position you’ll be happy with.
Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum.
I agree, Rocklobster. But it will only change in decades if we start now. If we wait four years, it will start in decades plus four years. So, we push for candidates who are principled pro-life now. And then we push again. William Wilberforce almost single-handedly got slavery outlawed in England because he refused to compromise.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/cain-abortion-no-exceptions-rape-and-incest
Do a little research - Cain has caused quite a bit of controversy because he doesn’t believe in abortion in cases of rape or incest, only for the life of the mother.
There are tons of articles on it. Research it.
“The culture you suggest will be changed as the law is changed.”
Like Prohibition?
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/cain-abortion-no-exceptions-rape-and-incest
and more
No one is more pro life than Cain.
If the culture wants to start killing off three-year-olds do we go ahead and let them?
Ozarkgirl,
Then you explain what he meant in the interview with CNN.
Strawman. We do not currently live in a culture that accepts and promotes the killing of three year olds. Changing hearts and minds through relationship is more valuable than an edict from on high.
Your words have no value or meaning. All you are really saying is that it is either okay to kill unborn children or that it is not the job of the government to stop it. Either way results in MORE dead babies.
It isn’t a strawman if you set a principle and then refuse to apply it any situation other than the one at hand. It is not a principle then.
“Changing hearts and minds through relationship is more valuable than an edict from on high.”
This doesn’t follow. I didn’t suggest that it was one or the other. Though we have laws against rape, I would still try to talk someone out of committing the crime.
Perhaps you are Catholic and will agree, then, that all abortifacients should be outlawed - including the pill, nutmeg, vitamin C, and papaya?
I have heard Cain say its a states issue. It was a states issue until Roe was decided by the SC. Michigan was an anti-abortion state until then.. I remember listening to the pro aborts say they took Roe to the SC because they didn’t have the money to fight it in all the states as I think there were only 1 or 2 states that had decided to be pro-abort...if it was a states issue today, I think most states would vote it down like before Roe was decided...Roe was a bad decision and not based on any constitutional law. It was a made up law by 5 lawyers that wear black robes...
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.
