Posted on 10/20/2011 10:01:17 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Maybe Herman Cain is trying too hard to be likable. He doesn’t need to enter attack mode or anything, but it would help if he didn’t pander to lefty media hosts, either. I have to assume that’s what this is — unless Cain really doesn’t think it’s the government’s business to ban abortion?
Last night, Cain told Piers Morgan that “life begins at conception” and said he opposes abortion “in all cases.” But when Morgan pressed him with typical questions about whether Cain would want his daughter or granddaughter to have a child conceived by rape or incest, Cain dodged. First, he told Morgan he was confusing two separate matters (apples and oranges, perhaps?). But, then, he said this, apparently still in reference to what he thinks about cases involving rape:
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.
Watch:
Huh?
This isn’t the first time Cain has seemed to contradict himself on the abortion issue. In an interview with John Stossel earlier this month, Cain circled around and around Stossel’s frank questions, defaulting to stock phrases like “I’m pro-life” and “life begins at conception” — but also “that’s her choice.” When Stossel asked him if abortion should be legal, though, he flat-out said “no.” That suggests that, in general at least, he does think it’s the government’s role to “make that decision.”
And in an interview with Meet the Press’ David Gregory, Cain said he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest because “the percentage of those instances is so minuscule that there are other options.” But “if it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision.”
If you put all the pieces together, at best it seems Cain believes abortion is wrong “in all cases,” should be illegal in most cases and should be a choice in some cases.
But it’s also possible he meant what he said to Piers Morgan, when he used pretty sweeping language to supposedly address exceptional cases: “It’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision.” It seems possible he’s bought into the idea that a complete government ban on abortion would somehow be an encroachment on individual freedom, rather than the most fundamental protection of it possible. Without life, what is liberty?
Yet, in 2003, he said he would support a Human Life Amendment, which would ultimately completely ban abortion. And, again, he told Stossel he thinks abortion should be illegal.
Quite confusing — and we can’t turn to his executive or legislative record to see what his actions on the issue have said. Whether his circumlocution should disqualify him with strictly pro-life voters is a matter for debate, but it would certainly help if Cain would clarify this by stating his position unequivocally.
For example (if this is his position), he could simply say: “I think abortion should be illegal and whether a person has a right to life is never another person’s choice to make.”
Or (if this is his position), he could say: “I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake.”
Or (if this is his position), he could say: “I think abortion should be legal, but, culturally speaking, will work to oppose it because I personally believe it is wrong.”
Whatever it is, Mr. Cain, just spit it out.
Yeah, but if you’ve taught in urban schools like I have, that can also mean “pass the child on to grandma!”
“The ANTI-CAIN Campaigners”
Nope. I like Cain and will consider voting for him. This issue doesn’t bother me btw. I agree with his real intent.
You should not admit to having a liberal opinion like that.
From your FReep page: Libertarian depending on the issue.
See my tagline.
“Yet many FReepers are swallowing this load without...”
They’re not “swallowing the load...”. They’re intentionally besmirching and maligning in an effort to tarnish the candidates reputation and credibility. These anti-Cain’s, Pro-Romney, Pro-Obama, and Pro-Perry groups are singing to the choir.
“People who don’t like Cain want to take his comments out of context.”
And people that dare call themselves Freepers are using it to LIE about Mr. Cain in order to help.....Romney? Seriously, do they really believe that Perry is sitting back in 4th, 5th or 6th place “ready to strike?”
It was Morgan who suggested that what Cain would decide for his own family is what he would force everybody else to do as well.
This is how interviewers inject their own suggestion into the dialog and get comments that can be taken out of context.
Cain HAD to say what he did, or Morgan would have said Cain tacitly agrees with elected officials forcing others to make the same choices they make. Cain’s point was that a woman who was raped is not forced to raise the child as her own, and it’s not the government’s job to decide that for her. But he was clear that killing the child should not be an option.
IOW, being pro-life isn’t about forcing parenthood on the mother, as the pro-aborts continuously want to make it seem; it’s about not forcing the child to be dead. There is an option for both a living child and a woman who doesn’t have to raise the child once it is born. In the extremely rare instance that a child is conceived as a result of rape, the woman can let the child be raised by someone else.
And I would add that whoever is allowed to adopt that infant would most probably be thanking God for answered prayers, since there are long waiting lines to adopt even severely handicapped infants.
A lot of us wanted Gov. Sarah Palin to be President. Some wanted Chris Christie. Others wanted Michelle Bachmann or Mitch Daniels or Paul Ryan or Jim DeMint or Donald Trump. None of them are going to be President this time. Gov. Rick Perry was another hopeful but he crashed and burned, especially with independents. So now we have the Rockefeller Romney, Federal Reserve Cain and the Bilderberg Perry to choose from.
So, the suicidal GOP has gone from a slam-dunk to a probable defeat.
I don’t give half a damn about your tagline.
I would not force a rape victim to carry her rapists seed to term, sue me.
If a woman is diagnosed that she WILL die if she tried to carry a child to term, you choose that she die? And YOU are pro-life?
Don’t make me laugh.
I would extend capital punishment to cover rape and child molestation.
True. But, many people are reading the excerpts (liberal spin) and are not reading the transcripts or watching the video.
More than once on more than a few of these threads - you see FReepers admitting that only AFTER do they look at the evidence do they see that Cain is NOT “anti-abortion yet pro-choice”.
Some may be confused or deceived because they didn’t look at context. A lot of Freepers don’t click on links to see the source documents so whatever is posted on the thread is what they get, or sometimes even just the headline is what they get. That creates an opening for people who want to deceive others.
If they look at the context and correct their error, it was probably just they didn’t want to take the time to check into it deeply. If they refuse to look at context or if they won’t align their belief with what is actually there, then I have to question their motives.
The gal at Hot Air who wrote this article needs to be asked whether she actually listened to or read the transcript of the interview in question. If she did, then I don’t understand why she wrote what she did, unless it is to confuse the issue or hurt Cain.
“Don’t make me laugh.”
Believe me pal, I find nothing funny about your attacks on my pro-life position.
“And YOU are pro-life?”
Yes. And damn proud of it. I wish I could say I’m surprised you are on this conservative board with your pro-choice views, but unfortunately FR is infested with libs like yourself.
independent in tx,
You’ve already stated that you support Perry.
Find for me the quote where ANY leading, current POTUS candidate has said that they do NOT believe in having exception to any outlawing of abortion.
If any of them DO believe in these exceptions, does that make them also pro-abortion? Or just not as “pure” as yourelf.
Usually, in liberal-speak, KEEP the baby means not to abort the child.
And real courageous to ping your buddy.....you don’t have what it takes to handle a conversation like this on your own?
The legal issue of consent is what makes the issue so difficult. If a person not related to me needed to live in my house or else they would die, could I be legally forced to let them live in my house? That’s how the legal issue appears to those who support the right to abort a child conceived through rape.
But it’s difficult because whether or not the woman gave consent for the sperm to be placed in her body, the child that results really is still her child.
So the legal issues are complex.
When it comes to the actual woman who faces the issue I think there are more complex issues than the legal ones, though, and I think it would be helpful for these women to realize that what was done to them was violence but even good can come from bad. There are divorced women raising children whose fathers they totally despise, and yet they love that child with all their heart - not basing their love on who the child came from, but on who the child is. And a child can become something wonderful even if his/her parent is total crapola.
I’ve seen research that suggests that the violence of abortion is more traumatic for a woman than the violence of rape - because she was the victim of the rape violence but the perpetrator of the abortion violence. A person can’t help being a victim, but they carry guilt for the rest of their life if they choose to perpetrate violence against an innocent victim.
So I recognize the legal issues, and those can be argued. I’m not going to throw rocks at anybody for what they argue about those legal issues.
I do think that a woman in that situation is better helped when she concentrates on blessing coming even from bad, rather than focusing on her own rights and on who created the child (unless it is on Who REALLY created the child, which is something only God can do). And I think it would be helpful for her to realize that she’s not alone in being afraid that seeing the child will bring back painful memories, but just like a LOT of women who despise the fathers of their children, she can love the child because it is HERS and because of what the child is like, and not punish the child for something he/she couldn’t help either.
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.