Posted on 10/20/2011 7:50:01 AM PDT by julieee
Cain: Government Shouldn't Make Decision on Abortion, Rape
Washington, DC -- Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is raising eyebrows today of pro-life advocates and political pundits who thought he had previously taken a pro-life position on abortion.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/20/cain-government-shouldnt-make-decision-on-abortion-rape/
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
I gave Cain the benefit of the doubt after seeing the Stossel interview. Now you want me to give Cain the benefit of the doubt again. Even after Cain has spoken out again using the same basic remarks.
"I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make."
Is Cain proving once again that he a great talker but not a great communicator, or may be he's just a great BS'er?
Herman Cain
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
http://www.ontheissues.org/herman_cain.htm
I watched the interviews and can say I dont know where he stands on abortion.
Nice try, though. This paragraph makes what he was saying pretty clear (about as clear as things ever get for Herman Cain on a controversial issue, that is):
“Not they don’t,” Cain said of his views becoming law. “I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”
And while I think Cain is still OK on the subject, I'll be damned if I'll let Cain supporters smear one of our premiere pro-life sources in the cause of defending their inarticulate candidate.
In an interview about abortion, it is hard to see how Cain could have interpreted Pier’s question to be about keeping the child vs adopting them. I guess it’s possible, because I have noticed Cain isn’t always articulate when it comes to questions he isn’t expecting.
I guess we will have to wait for his clarification again. It’s an easy enough question to ask.
But I read his summary statement as emphasizing that he would not translate all of his abortion views into law, which would make no sense if he WAS going to support a law banning all abortions including rape and incest. He certainly wasn’t talk about adoption in THAT part of the interview.
The "pro-choice-by-state" line is a well-worn move by Republicans who want to appear to support the pro-life movement, when in reality they know it won't save a single life.
Neither rape nor incest are capital crimes in America, so why would ANYONE believe that an innocent child deserves to die for a crime for which the child's father will only be jailed?
You should be working on his campaign! Only thing I would change is I wouldn’t call the baby a victim. Only if the baby is aborted is he or she a victim. The baby has been given life by the rapist in G-d’s sometimes mysterious plan.
Or maybe your comprehension abilities are severely impaired...or maybe just clouded.
Unalienable rights do NOT come from the states. That is a pro-abortion position you are advocating.
Please don’t make the “life of the mother” issue into a “self-defense” matter. That’s profoundly mistaken. Self-defense applies when a guilty aggressor threatens me or those for whom I’m responsible. The baby is innocent, so cannot be a guilty agressor.
Instead, if the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother we have two innocent lives involved.
Hence, we have a moral obligation to take care of the health of both. If the treatment of the mother results in the death of the baby it is NOT self-defense but double-effect. Assuming the method of treating the mother was the best possible choice taking account of both lives, if the baby dies, it is a double effect of the treatment of the mother and is morally legitimate.
It is NOT self-defense.
The mother is free but not morally obligated to sacrifice her life by refusing treatment or choosing a treatment that risks her life in order to save the baby’s life.
Self-defense is not involved in any way whatsoever.
He wasn’t talking about raising the child you say? That’s very strange, since this is the question that is asked:
“MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?”
Why would you assume Cain is answering a question different than the one he was asked? You do know that we can go to the transcripts and see what was actually said rather than take your word for it, or judge based on the out-of-context paragraph you posted, right?
By the way, I’m not a “Cain supporter”. I haven’t made my final decision on who I’ll vote for yet, and I haven’t donated to any of the candidates this cycle either. I just take exception to people using deceptive tactics to smear other Republicans. I know it’s politics, but I expect a little better from us than the Dems.
“Cain’s words stand on their own”
His words stand in context, as words ALWAYS do. The context in this interview with Piers Morgan is clear: he was asked whether he would want his daughter or granddaughter to put the baby up for adoption or raise it as her own. He said that should be the choice of the family, not legislation.
You either hate Cain for some reason or you are a troll for one of the other candidates, given your comments on Cain threads.
Which is it? Why can’t you simply be honest? What’s the point of distorting Cain’s words?
It’s deceptively edited. Instead of posting the actual question, which said “raise the baby”, they paraphrase it using the phrase “keep the baby”. “Keep the baby” could mean raise the baby, but it can also be the very common meaning of “not abort the baby”, implying that Cain is saying that it’s ok to abort it. That is not honest reporting.
You are wrong. As others have pointed out repeatedly on this thread, Cain was responding to Morgan’s question about putting up for adoption or raising as one’s own a baby conceived in rape. He was NOT speaking to whether a child of rape may be aborted.
Please read the transcript as posted more than once on this thread.
Actually, I think it is clear. The opposite of “Keep the baby as her own” is not abort the baby but keep the baby as not her own, i.e., give it up for adoption. If Morgan had simply said “keep the baby” it would be ambiguous as you say, but he added “as her own.”
Or perhaps you were referring to the LifeSite news article—which dropped “as her own”—that is deceptive editing of the transcript. The transcript is clear, the article is deceptive. This would not be the first time LifeSiteNews has played fast and loose with things.
So I grant your point. It has helped to clarify things. The transcript is what counts. LifeSiteNews can go to where the sun don’t shine.
Yes, Cain was answering a question about "bringing up" a child. He was not answering a question about abortion.
Oh yes. Let’s bash LifeSiteNews for being critical of the Saint Herman Cain!
Anyone who tries to promote the idea that Catin, an assistant Baptist pastor, is anything but totally against abortion at any time is either being disengenuous or malicious.
In a properly governed USA, no state could have laws which violate the Constitution (as originally intended, of course!).
Laws allowing murder are unconstitutional, so no state should be allowed to have laws allowing abortion.
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.