Doesn’t really matter what they say. I’m not voting for Mitt Perry.
I fully expect lies and sleeze from liberals.
I will not tolerate it from conservatives.
Needs to be repeated.
If we don’t put the rapist to death, why do we put the baby to death?
Herman Cain CAN’T ban abortion in cases of rape and incest....
From the tone of questioning, I wouldn’t put it past them to edit the interview to make it seem like Cain was referring to abortion in general when he said it was a family decision. It’s clearly not what he said in the debate.
Thank-you so much for clarifying Cain’s statements! I hadn’t seen the interview myself and was a little concerned as to what he’d said.
Herman Cain is the real deal. Ricky and Mittens should get a room.
This is a complete non-issue.
Even if Cain became Pres and jumped up and down screaming to ban all abortion, there’s no way a noodly Congress would go for it.
—READ THE TRANSCRIPT: Herman Cain would ban abortion, including in cases of rape and incest—
One can only hope. But I don’t think the president has that power.
On a related note, a baby who is the result of rape or incest is no more guilty than any other baby. Anyone that opposes abortion except for these cases is opposing it for the wrong reasons.
ABC chimes in, of course: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/is-herman-cain-pro-choice/
He’s saying he’s personally against it but doesn’t think the govt should interfere in extreme conditions.
Sounds ok by me.
Looks to me like he’s got the Chris Christie and usual “pro-choice” rationale: he’s personally against it in all cases, but he doesn’t think the government should make the decision in any cases.
His other major social position is, to me, bizarre and not credible: he thinks that homosexuality in orientation—not specifically action—is a choice. That that’s his “opinion” and you are entitled to your “opinion”.
I really think we’re in tough shape with our choices, as there is no way I want Romney or Perry.
I hope the sickness of the perrywinkles and the head up willards rear is not catching.
I had a baby when I was a teenager. My sister took me get an abortion, but I had hid the baby for so long that they could not perform the abortion. Thank God! I had a beautiful baby girl and gave her up for adoption in 1979. I was 16 years old. It was the best decision I ever made. I found her in 2002. I now have a daughter, a son-in-law and 2 grandsons.
You see after I gave her up for adoption, I finished school, went on later to get married and tried for 10 years to have a family. I had an ectopic pregnancy in 1991 and another one in 1997. So, the daughter I did not abort, is my only living child. The other two are waiting for me in heaven.
You see, the truth is, the only acceptable reason for terminating a pregnancy is if the mother is going to die and the baby too!
The doctors told me that if they didn’t remove my baby both times from my fallopian tube, then it would burst and I would bleed to death, and both me and my baby would die. So, I had no choice. I will have to say, I thought about dying with my baby because I loved my baby so much. But my family needed me and I knew somewhere out there, my daughter would need me someday too!
Adoption is the answer to an unplanned pregnancy.
Did not God adopt all of us who believe into His wonderful Jesus?
It is not the babies fault and there are so many people wanting babies..
I have to ask: what was Morgan mixing? What Cain doesn’t sound like he’s certain is how to address this question, and reflexively, he starts trotting out language he’s heard before.
“it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision.”
“it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.”
Neither of these comments fits the point he was making that a child’s origins in rape and incest aren’t reasons to kill a child. They’re pro-choice language. That doesn’t mean he’s pro-choice, and I’m NOT saying he is personally or politically pro-choice. But I don’t think these sound like answers coming from a conservative with a strong ability to enunciate his view of abortion. Obviously, he has taken a strong stance on abortion prior to the question that threw him off. But he was thrown by a variation on the Kitty Dukakis stumper, and I don’t think this indicates that Cain is going to be great in debates without serious effort—effort he doesn’t seem interested in making.
I think he relies on his prior work on the radio to have prepared him for this kind of question, and it didn’t, since so many callers already agreed with him. And he has expressed disdain for the debate process with his comments regarding the other candidates “getting on his last nerve.” What is the process for if it’s not to get on his nerves, to winnow out the details of each candidate’s positions and resumes? What are these meetings for if they are not intended to get each candidate to expose his abilities and interests through pressure? You would think that Cain, having been exposed repeatedly through the Boortz show to this kind of discussion, would be more patient, more able, and less obviously annoyed. But he comes across as someone who wouldn’t be bothered if he could avoid this distasteful stuff, both at the debates and when being questioned by the press.
And what power would he have as president to make this personal principle law? I think that the answer to that makes the whole question moot.