Posted on 10/20/2011 6:43:41 AM PDT by dangus
What is it with pro-lifers and their “it can’t be done” mantra? If they’d been around for the 1860 election, they’d have said, “What’s Lincoln going on about? He can’t abolish slavery anyway.”
For nearly three years I’ve watched that Kenyan in the White House do “what a President can’t do”. Why is it that those who wish to do evil find ways to “git’er done”, but those who wish to save the lives of little babies find ways not to?
If Cain says “I will ban this evil practice!”, I’ll vote for him any day over someone who says “Well I’d love to ban the practice except that I can’t.”
Out of context. The choice Cain is referring to is about the family RAISING a child born of rape or incest, not ABORTING it. Read the complete transcript carefully, see post 31. Cain is consistently pro life.
I agree with him. But there is no way on this earth that he will ever be able to change the existing laws. There is no support in either house for it, and only a few states would outlaw it.
Non issue for me. Not that I am pro abortion, but that nothing will change because of a candidates stance on the topic.
True, but pro life vs pro choice does reflect on a candidates moral character. It took a long time for the U.S. to give up on slavery and it will take a long time for it to give up on murdering the unborn. Both issues revolve around the ridiculous claim that certain classes of people are subhuman, which is no different than the Nazi viewpoint.
Need a link to the transcript, so we can read the full interview.
If so, he was not clear about it. Until I hear Cain say "I meant government should not force someone to raise an unwanted child", I will assume he meant that government has no say in whether a woman should abort. When has anyone ever suggested that a raped woman be forced to raise her own child? If that's what he meant, he should have made it clear.
Major mistake, none of them can hold a candle to Cain's pro-life stance. He is almost Alan Keyes level pro-life without the stupid antics.
Here is the part that calls into question your interpretation of the interview:
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?You could argue that, at the moment when Cain said Piers was "mixing two things", that Cain really did mean that "bring up that baby" meant to Cain "raise the child". Or, he could have meant that Piers was mixing up the idea of being personally opposed to something, and legislating it.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.
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.
MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively -- you might be president. You can't hide behind now the mask, if you don't mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.
CAIN: 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 social decisions that they need to make.
MORGAN: That's a very interesting departure --
CAIN: Yes.
MORGAN: -- from the normal politics.
CAIN: Exactly.
So, which is more likely? Well, in the next three answers, Cain clearly talks about how he wouldn't legislate his personal opinions on everything. And Piers questions him on that, noting that as President, "your views on these things" becomes important.
Now, note that under your assumption, Cain's "views" on the last question were that government had no business in the question of adoption vs keeping the child. If Piers thought that was what Cain meant, he certainly wouldn't have suggested that Cain would push THAT view on the nation, since Cain's view was that government wouldn't have anything to do with it.
So clearly, Pier's last question is about views Cain actually holds about abortion being wrong, even in the case of rape and incest.
But could Cain have understood Pier's last question to be about the adoption question, rather than about the topic, abortion? Hardly. Because if Cain thought Piers was talking about adoption, the ANSWER would be "I just said government would have nothing to do with that, so how could my views be a problem for anybody?"
SO it's clear that Cain, in his next answer, is answering the charge that he might legislate his views on abortion being wrong, even for rape and incest. And Cain's response is that he can have a personal opinion, without trying to legislate it. Which would mean he IS saying he wouldn't make abortion illegal in the case of rape and incest.
What else COULD he mean here? You'd have to argue that Cain completely lost track of the interview, and decided the question had nothing to do with his abortion position, in order for that answer to NOT be about Cain legislating his views on abortion.
And if that isn't clear enough, Piers THEN says that his position is a departure from the normal politics. What could Piers have meant about that? Cain just said he wouldn't legislate his personal view. Piers says that is a departure from the normal politics. It seems clear he means the "normal politics of abortion". He certainly isn't talking about Cain saying he wouldn't force mothers to raise children, because NO politician has ever said they would do that, and a statement like that would NOT be a departure.
But he also clearly isn't saying that Cain would make rape and incest abortions illegal, because Cain NEVER says that in his interview. He said he personally opposed abortion in all cases, that he was "against it", but then people shouldn't worry about him as president because he wouldn't legislate his own opinions.
So it seems clear Piers has decided that Cain just said he was personally pro-life, but wouldn't try to legislate that. At least in the case of rape and incest. That's the only rational understanding of Pier's question.
To which Cain replies Yes. So, what is Cain agreeing to? That his position is a radical departure? He certainly isn't "suddenly remembering" he was talking about rape/incest exception. If Cain had really decided to talk about adoption, his "yes" answer makes no sense -- his answer should have been "Not at all Piers, no pro-life person is trying to force women to raise children, just to give them the chance at life".
So what is his "unique" position? Is it about banning rape/incest? For that to be true, you have to think that Cain's previous two answers were about adoption, and then he decided Pier's short quip was BACK to the previous subject. That makes no sense.
And it clearly isn't about adoption, as I noted. No, it seems it is about his last answer. This makes sense -- Cain just gave an answer, Piers says the answer is unique, Cain says yes.
But what was that answer? It was that Cain would not legislate his personal opinion on the subject they are discussing. And again, that can't be adoption, because only a fool would think there was a question about legislating adoption, and Cain is no fool. So it must be about abortion. Cain said he wouldn't legislate his opinion on abortion.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he meant "abortion in the case of rape and incest", since that was the topic they were discussing. I don't think he was saying he wouldn't ban ANY abortions.
But two things are clear.
First, the rational interpretation here is that Cain decided to tell Peirs that he wouldn't make abortion illegal in the case of rape and incest.
Second, that Cain's answers were far from clear, if he meant anything OTHER than that he wouldn't legislate on this issue.
When a solid pro-life group thinks you just reversed yourself, it isn't THEIR fault, it is yours. Cain is supposed to be the great communicator. And yet he completely confused his audience, and the questioner, on this subject.
The word was “bring up”, not “raise”.
He has a whole section in this interview about the peace-loving muslims, and how he would also ban extremist Christians from his cabinet.
It’s funny how many arguments the Cain folks used against Perry that are going up in smoke, as Cain clarifies his positions. Turns out he doesn’t want to kill illegals crossing our border, he is unlikely to actually support a federal law banning abortion for rape and incest, he DOES think there are peace-loving muslims and would be happy to put them in his cabinet, he doesn’t think Perry is actually insensitive to blacks, and he’s not planning to deport every illegal immigrant in this country.
But he does have the 9-9-9 plan, and he did take Godfather’s pizza from being the 5th-largest pizza chain to the 11th-largest.
Here is the whole transcript: http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/do-we-really-know-who-herman-cain-is/
If you read the whole thing, Cain wants his cake and to eat it, too.
You do understand that the media/press have one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans.
If Cain tried to pull a move like Obama as President over this issue, then all hell would break lose.
Since a lot of Republicans (RINOS) are weak kneed and like to bend over and grab their ankles. It’s just NOT going to happen.
Someone should apparently write down the questions and submit it to him, so he can send it to his staff and they can formulate his response for him. Because he is about as clear as mud on the issue at this point.
Here's an article from Alan Keyes on the Stossel interview: Herman Cain is not making sense:
Stossel: A quickie, a quick question on one more hot subject – abortion …”Keyes goes on to say:Cain: Yes
Stossel: You’re against it …
Cain: I’m pro-life from conception, yes
Stossel: Any cases where it should be legal?
Cain: I don’t think government should make that decision. I don’t believe that government should make that decision.
Stossel: People should be free to abort a baby …
Cain: I support life from conception. No, people shouldn’t be just free to abort because if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.
Stossel: I’m confused on what your position is. If a …
Cain: My position is I’m pro-life, period.
Stossel: … woman is raped she should not be allowed to end the pregnancy?
Cain: That’s her choice. That is not government’s choice. I support life from conception.
Stossel: So abortion should be legal.
Cain: No abortion should not be legal. I believe in the sanctity of life.
Stossel: I’m not understanding. If it’s her choice, that means its legal.
Cain: I don’t believe a woman should have an abortion. Does that help to clear it up.
Stossel: Even if she is raped?
Cain: Even if she is raped or she is the victim of incest, because there are other options. We must protect the sanctity of life and I have always believed that. (Applause.) Real clear.
But I more than sympathize with John Stossel’s confusion when Cain’s emphatic pro-life declarations are accompanied by the equally emphatic statement that, when it comes to the legality of abortion, “I don’t’ think government should make that decision. I don’t believe that government should make that decision.” Equally confused is his assertion that, in the case of rape, “That’s her choice. That is not the government’s choice. I support life from conception.”Keyes concludes with a statement that highlights the problem of nominating a person who has never had a single day in public office, and who therefore has no record at all on which to ground our opinions of what he really means:
Sometimes politicians betray their professed conservative views because they were never sincerely committed to them in the first place. Sometimes they do so because, despite their sincere proclamations of personal belief, they lack the understanding to defend their views when challenged on grounds of law and civic principle. When it comes to making and enforcing laws, personal beliefs and predilections cannot, in practice, be sustained except by people who know how to deal with such challenges. The self-contradiction that confused John Stossel will surely be exploited in the debates and councils (in the public eye and behind the scenes) in the course of which laws are made and policies implemented. Someone who starts by firmly espousing a self-contradictory view will end by surrendering to opponents who embarrass him with that self-contradiction. Sadly, the people who supported him will then lament the failure of principle that, with a little discerning thought, they would have seen coming long before it occurred.
And in the Morgan interview, he never says the words "I would support a law that bans abortion".
Maybe he would, and if so, he should say it.
But it is absurd, given how poorly Cain has answered the questions, for Cain supporters to blame OTHER CANDIDATE SUPPORTERS for their own candidate's lack of ability to communicate effectively on this issue.
Well, even if we didn’t have the transcript to refer back to, to see what he is talking about, it’s obvious even from the paragraph you posted that he can’t be talking about all abortions being a choice the family should make, or he wouldn’t be saying it’s a statistically small number.
Cain is a very good and likable marketer.
We’ve now seen him tap dance around a number of his initial statements.
What he said was rare was pregnancies in the case of rape and incest. I don’t think there are very many people who were confused on that point. He clearly didn’t mean it was rare for a woman to decide whether to give their child up for adoption or not.
God bless you and your daughter and may you have a joyous reunion with your two children awaiting you in Heaven.
One could say that, or one could guess that he figured out he’d only been challenged and thus cornered on a small portion of the overall abortion issue.
I really don’t know the answer, but I do know he hasn’t offered a consistent, clear position. This matters the more because we don’t have a voting record for him—and we know how easy it is for candidates to say what they think they want us to hear in the midst of a campaign.
We are getting a lot of double talk from Cain. It’s getting extremely confusing. http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/do-we-really-know-who-herman-cain-is/
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.