oh my... Cain is pro abortion?!?!?
wow
I saw the entire interview and what he said was he did not believe in Abortion for any reason but he also did not feel it was the place of the federal govt to regulate moral decisions. I happen to agree that that is not a providence of the Federal govt but a State issue.
Too bad we have to scratch Rick Perry off the list too.
Rick Perry said he believes abortion should be legal only in cases involving rape or incest or when carrying a pregnancy to term would threaten the woman’s life.
Source: Associated Press on FoxNews.com Jun 25, 2002
http://www.ontheissues.org/governor/Rick_Perry_Abortion.htm
Very misleading posting. If you hadn’t cut the article off right where you did, it would be pretty clear he was responding to a question about cases of rape and incests, which makes his position identical to most other Republican politician.
Nice try.
Cain’s answer would indicate that he is “pro-choice”. Disappointing.
Herman Cain's faith, what little there is of it, continues to trouble me.
Morgan told Cain that his views on the question of abortion are important because he may very well become president someday and turn into public policy.Note the distinction between the government deciding, and the family deciding. Hey Herman - should the family or the government decide if rape should be legal?“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”....
....“I believe in life from conception, and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances,” Cain responded. “Not for rape and incest because if you look at, you look at rape and incest, the, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options. If it’s the life of the mother, that family’s going to have to make that decision.”
Pressed on the life of the mother exception, Cain stuck to his answer, saying, “That family is going to have to make that decision.”
"Cain responded to questions concerning abortion in the case of rape or incest and said that, while he is pro-life, government should have no role in making the decision. However, some observers say Cain was talking about more than rape or incest and point to his comments saying it appears he was talking about abortion in a general sense when saying government should have no role in protecting unborn children from abortions."
So it's not about what Cain said, it's about what some, anonymous, "observers" say what Cain was really talking about, even though it contradicts what Cain said only minutes before.
Cains abortion views are clear and this articles is a dishonest hit piece because Cain refused to sign the organizations "pledge". Good! I want my President beholding to no one except the voters, and this includes pro-life organizations.
MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?
CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why —
MORGAN: No circumstances?
CAIN: No circumstances.
MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.
CAIN: They qualify but —
MORGAN: Rape and incest.
CAIN: Rape and incest.
Cain is specifically rejecting exceptions to anti-abortion laws that other candidates have put forth allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest.
So Morgan asks whether Cain would want his daughters to RAISE a child born out of rape and incest as their own. Cain replies that’s a decision for the family to make. That’s where the sick bastards who are trying to bring Cain down leap into action, making it seem like the question was whether Cain would want them to carry the baby to term:
MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.
CAIN: Ask the tricky question.
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?
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 incidents, 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.
Some truth courtesy of dangus.
I’m just going to post the relevant section of the article so that FReepers can judge for themselves what Cain really meant:
““Whats your view of abortion?” Morgan asks Cain in the interview.
“I believe that life begins at conception and abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why,” Cain said before Morgan interrupted him and asked, “No circumstances?” to which the presidential candidate replied, “No circumstances.”
Morgan told Cain that that sets him apart from many other Republican candidates who are pro-life but also believe in exceptions such as rape or incest or the life of the mother. He continued by asking Cain if he would ant his daughter or granddaught5er, if raped, to keep the baby — which Cain said “was mixing two things.”
“It’s not the government’s role, or anybody else’s role to make that decision,” Cain responded. “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.””
OMG he has said on numerous occassions he’s Pro-Life even in cases or rape and incest.
This trashing other candidates thing is getting old.
Why can’t you just support your Republican Candidate and quit trashing others?
If you don’t like Cain, that’s fine! Don’t vote for him. Conservatives shouldn’t be trashing each other.
"No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, 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 try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.
No, they don’t. 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.
Sounds like Cain's position is similar to the position of many liberal Democrats and others who say --- I personally oppose abortion, but I have no right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion. That is THE pro-abortion position.
Convince me otherwise.
All people have an inherent right of self defense. It is a modernist, humanist and false interpretation of Scripture to deny the right of self defense embodied in it.
The right of self defense is why traditionally if the mother’s or child’s life was in danger, as doctors tried to save both mother and child, if that became impossible, certainly they would seek to save the mother’s life. They did not set out to end either life, but to save them both. The decision to give up on saving the child’s life and to save the mother’s life was only in cases where there was a forced decision between the two. The reasoning is that the mother has a right of self defense and the child being born is not entitled to kill his or her mother that the child might live.
Sometimes mothers, like one recently who refused cancer treatments, make a decision to give their unborn child an almost certain chance of survival while unselfishly reducing their own if that would most certainly kill their unborn child. This particular case was not a decision to commit suicide, which is also defies the commandments of Scripture. Instead, it was a case where there was a strong probability that the mother would have died anyway; her chances of survival with treatment were by no means 100%, but far less, and her unborn child most certainly would have been killed by the cancer treatments. It’s critically important to note that the unborn child was not responsible for the mother’s cancer and posed no threat to the mother’s health in and of themself. In that case, the mother was laying her life down for her child’s much the same as a righteous soldier does - “no greater love”.
Any other case of abortion is a case of the mother or other people desiring that the child never be born and taking the life of the unborn child, which is unequivocally murder.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires the President to take the following oath of office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
As far as enforcing the laws passed by Congress, by all means they should be seeing that this is done.
That being said, one can hardly say that the Constitution was intended to condone the murder of unborn children, rather it was most certainly intended to preserve life up until the Lord takes it in his time. So we now have legal precedent in the United States which is at odds with the intent of the Constitution - actually in an enormous number of ways, this being only one of the more heinous.
Life does indeed begin at conception, to say otherwise is trying to escape natural law (that law revealed to us by God through the Bible) for our own convenience through invented technicalities, which are acknowledged to be a farce in the case of a ninth-month abortion but somehow people hold their nose and tolerate with a second-month abortion. We have sunk to the depths of institutionalized murder of convenience.
Those who seek to retain the legal option to kill their children in the womb may take generations to come to the realization that this option hurts them much more than it helps them. While a President may not be able politically and legally to right this wrong on the first day of their administration, if they are to fulfill their oath of office in good conscience they most certainly must make it their business to work towards that goal.
It is clear from your title, and if you read the article, that Cain is pro-life.
This article is important though, because it shows that Cain’s position on the issue is no different than the other candidates. After Sunday, a lot of Cain supporters were touting that Cain was opposed to allowing abortions in the case of rape and incest. This interview makes it clear he would NOT ban those abortions.
His argument for not banning those sounds identical to the argument against banning abortions at all — that those decisions have to be made by the family. So the author of the piece says it’s hard to tell whether Cain supports a law banning abortions.
But we can just ask Cain that question. So it’s not a big deal. What is a big deal is that Cain seems to have reversed his position on a Rape/Incest exception from Sunday to today (although to be fair to Cain, on Sunday nobody ever actually pinned him down about whether he supported legislation about it).
This does mean that the Cain supporters will have to stop attacking Perry about this issue. In fact, this now makes Perry better on the pro-life issue than Cain. And yes, I’ll explain:
Cain has never approved a single policy to advance the pro-life cause. He has never signed any legislation that would be pro-life. He’s never made a decision that would prove he was pro-life.
When he was asked, he made it sound like he was so pro-life he’d ban all abortions except to save a life. But then in another interview he said, at least for rape and incest, it was a woman’s decision. So he sounds like he is still trying to decide what his public policy positions should be.
We KNOW what Perry’s public policy position is. He’s been living the pro-life position for a decade now. He’s actually implemented policies, he’s been a solid and consistent advocate.
So, given the two — Cain, whose now-stated position is like Perry’s but who has yet to articulate fully what policies he’ll support, and Perry, who has a proven track record — Perry is the less risky choice for the Pro-Life vote.
I watched the interviews and can say I dont know where he stands on abortion.
Cain basically wasn’t real clear in the interview. He’s a political neophyte and got twisted up. He’ll clarify or change it or revise it as needed here in the near future.