Posted on 10/30/2011 10:08:40 AM PDT by markomalley
Herman Cain again attempted to clarify his position on abortion Sunday, declaring on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "I am pro-life from conception, period" - and that he does not support exceptions even for victims of rape and incest.
"I am pro-life from conception, period. If people look at many speeches that I have given over the years, that has and will still be my position," Cain told CBS' Bob Schieffer.
Cain's position on abortion has been questioned in recent weeks, after the candidate suggested in an interview on CNN that decisions about abortion should be left to families, not the government.
"What I'm saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make," Cain said in that interview. "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."
Cain has since maintained his pro-life stance on abortion, but many have said his comments seem to indicate otherwise.
Cain said today that the CNN interview was "taken totally out of context" and suggested that his comments were misrepresentative of his actual beliefs.
"So in other words you don't... would not even believe in abortion if rape, incest or the health of the mother was involved?" asked Schieffer.
"Yes, that's my position," he said. "Thanks for having me clear that up."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
From your link Cain said "abortion should be illegal."
???
First you tell me that I’m “pretty far from reality” then you say you’re in favor of the ‘morning after’ pill, i.e., a medical abortion.
???
Because I don’t think it is fair or safe for a 12 year-old little girl that was raped by her own father, brother, uncle, etc. to be forced to give birth to a child.
How about that little baby in the womb of that 12 year-old girl?
Do you not believe that little baby is Created Equal to you and I?
Does that little baby have rights guaranteed to him in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment?
How about the rights of the little girl?
It is clear that you would force your own daughter to live a life of despair and suffer both physical and emotional pain beyond description.
Nuff said on this issue.
“It is clear that you would force your own daughter to live a life of despair and suffer both physical and emotional pain beyond description.”
Somehow, I do not believe the fear of living a life of despair and pain is justification for murder.
But, go ahead and murder another human being and tell the court you killed that person because you think that sometime in the future, that person might cause you a little despair.
If Perry has 4% of the delegates after Super Tuesday, he will drop out of the race.
He said in that first 20 seconds that he doesn’t think the Government should make that decision when Stossel asked “Any cases when it should be illegal?” Mr. Cain keeps saying it’s the woman’s choice. How will government not be involved in making abortion illegal, and if it’s illegal, how can it be the woman’s choice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELkanHrSqw
Just watch the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELkanHrSqw
I wouldn’t know where to start distorting Mr. Cain’s comments.
He said in that first 20 seconds that he doesn’t think the Government should make that decision when Stossel asked “Any cases when it should be illegal?
You're giving false information.
Stossel asked Cain, "are there any cases where abortion should be LEGAL?".
Cain's answer was that the government should not make that decision..."that decision" meaning a decision to MAKE IT LEGAL.
And there should be no confusion what so ever after he said, "abortion should be illegal".
You are spreading false information.
As smart as you appear to be on these threads, are you seriously telling me you cannot understand what the man is saying?
Thank you for the compliment.
Mr. Stossel and his “liberal” guest couldn’t understand Mr. Cain, either. The Fox interviewer had the same confusion.
We need to get him some information on the problems with the words he “chooses” and let him know how the opposition will use his words against him.
Didn’t you read what I wrote? While life begins at conception, most rapes would not even make a conception. Most of the time an egg is not available. Now, sperm can live in there for up to a week, true. But if you take the morning after pills, which are just hormones in short term high quantities to make the uterus inhospitable, you are really taking birth control because you are doing it before any conception probably took place, and again, a conception most likely did not ever take place anyway.
I agree that there is a chance the pill would be actually abortifacient. But in 90% of rape cases, it would be an unnecessary preventative, or perhaps birth control, i.e. Preventing conception as birth control does.
I did mistype the word, it should read “legal.”
However, the same principle holds: the government does make the decision whether an action is legal or illegal. He’s not saying that the government shouldn’t make abortion legal. He’s clearly saying the government shouldn’t make “that decision” about “cases when it should be legal.” Then, “That’s her choice, that is not government’s choice.” In the Fox interview, he said “you don’t know what they’re going to do in the heat of the moment.”
And then today, he said he would make no exceptions, even for the health of the mother. First, he should have interjected an exception for the life of the mother and second, there are are true “health of the mother” exceptions, also.
The interviewers are clearly confused about his meaning, as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WELkanHrSqw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyeAsWV9HEc
I believe he’s pro-life, he’s just been using the wrong arguments in his statements. The phrases he uses have concrete meanings, no less than other legal or medical terms.
And then today, he said he would make no exceptions, even for the health of the mother. First, he should have interjected an exception for the life of the mother and second, he should have said that there are exceptions for a true danger to the “health of the mother.”
We’ve just got to get him the information about how to phrase the argument so that he is clear and so that his words won’t be used against him (and the rest of us in our efforts to win a sonogram or fetal pain law or to end those exceptions for rape and incest) by the opposition.
https://lifeethics.wordpress.com/2006/09/02/review-plan-b-how-it-works-and-doesnt-work/
The Plan B regimen only works (when it works) by delaying ovulation and slowing down the sperm (it makes the cervical mucus thick). There’s lots of evidence that it doesn’t interfere with implantation, none that it does.
In contrast, the new morning after pill, EllaOne ( https://lifeethics.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/ellaone-the-new-post-coital-or-morning-after-pill/ ), may indeed interfere with implantation by delaying the progesterone rise that makes the uterus “hospitable” to implantation.
She should have the baby and give him or her up for adoption.
At least half of women who report pregnancy from rape choose not to abort. The abortion is a second rape, a second violation. The mere necessity of having to make a “choice” about having an abortion is torture - and that torture doesn’t end with the abortion.
From what women have told us, she will relive both the rape and the abortion from time to time and will always wonder about her “choice.”
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.