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.
Morgan’s actual question was about her raising the child “as her own”.
Do you support that?
Hey - ping all your pro-choice buddies. If it makes ya feel better.
I’ll be here waiting to know why you think it’s OK to murder a child in the womb simply because her father was a criminal.
I think it would be great, in a world where abortion was outlawed except in cases of rape or LIFE of the mother, the rape VICTIM chose 100% of the time to carry that child to term. However I would never, not ever use the force of government to MAKE her do as I choose.
Piss off.
ALL of the candidates have said they that any of the others would be their preference over Obama....that’s not just a Cain thing.
A) Dead is dea.
B) I’m not playing your little game.
A) Dead is dead.
B) I’m not playing your little game.
That’s an excellent example of somebody misrepresenting what Cain said. That’s exactly the kind of garbage we have to look out for.
The transcript of the actual interview has been posted here, and it is clear that Cain’s response was to the question of whether he would want his raped daughter to raise the child as her own. Cain told Morgan he was mixing the issues and that the family would have to decide that. When Morgan said it is important to know what he thinks about the issue because he might turn his opinion into policy, Cain said that government shouldn’t be making that decision (keeping the child versus putting the child up for adoption) for everybody else.
That’s all. But if people take the comments out of context (as the source you gave me did) they can twist it into something convoluted.
And I have to question the motives for anybody who does that. The Iowa Republican is now on my very questionable list.
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.
“You’ve already stated that you support Perry.”
Yes I do. And I’ve stated I also support Cain.
It’s possible to like more than one, and be willing to vote for the one who lasts until the end.
Yes it is. A similar thread was deleted last night.
He singled out Ron Paul as the one he least respects, and explained it's because Paul wants to eliminate too much of government, whereas Cain doesn't want to eliminate, he wants to fix.
He was then asked about those he didn't bring up, and he singled out Bachmann and Santorum, saying they didn't demonstrate leadership skill. I think he was mum on Perry.
ABORTION FOR ANY REASON IS MURDER. The states have the right, and the responsibility, to make it a criminal event, like they USED to do!
Taking a life is murder and the Establishment introduced the first step to where we are today! Without God there can be NO AMERICA. And God said we are not to kill!
I wish Herman Cain had stuck to his guns on this one if he didn’t. Again, here is the video:
Herman Cain and Piers Morgan interview
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/herman-cain-and-piers-morgan
I can live with that. And I actually wonder how many women would choose to preserve life if the government stayed out of the control/power issue with it. I think it could be emotionally freeing for her to know that though it wasn’t her choice to be assaulted, it WAS her choice to give life as a free gift, not under compulsion.
I think about cultures where the men totally control the women. Like the girl who was raped by a bunch of guys who forced her to sign a paper and then she found out that it was a marriage contract so she could never even charge them with raping her. And getting the girl pregnant is just another way to make her powerless. I think there are pro-choice people who honestly think that is what the pro-life movement wants to do to women. It’s not. For women whose consent has already been violated, allowing them the choice to consent to nurturing the life and giving them all the reasons why that would be affirming of their own life and why it would NOT be the rapist exerting further control over them... may be a win-win for everybody because she will choose life, given that support.
“I can live with that.”
According to some a-holes that makes you a pro-abort monster.
Next time - you’ll know better than to try and reason with a “pro-abort monster”.
Signed....
“a-hole”
I haven't even reached the abortion segment of the tape...
...but the Romney answer both surprised me and raised a red flag.!!!!!-----Then he dissed Bachmann as not leadership material.
Consider if he respected Romney enough, Romney might be his choice for vice-president if it came to that.
That's not acceptable to me at any level!!!
Hey, thank you for the clarification. The author implied the question was about abortion, not raising the child. Re read in that light, of course it is the person’s decision about whether they are able to raise the child. Quite a bit different than whether the child should be killed. But, shame on seekandfind for setting out this baited article. We need clarity not obfuscation.
I can see both sides of this argument.
No person should be allowed to be killed simply because of who their father is.
But no person should be forced to house, feed, and give up their bodily autonomy to save a stranger’s life.
I guess the LEGAL question comes down to two issues:
1. What makes a child someone’s child? Is it biology, or is it consent?
2. And if someone refuses to give life-saving, non-heroic care to somebody in need is it either homicidal neglect or murder, or is that their legal prerogative?
There are serious legal ramifications for any answer to those questions.
I think that regardless of what we argue from a legal standpoint, we can agree that preserving life is the right and good thing, and women can be strengthened to choose life if they are reminded of how precious life is and how good can come from bad.
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.