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.
Link to the VIDEO without the SPIN:
Herman Cain and Piers Morgan interview
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/herman-cain-and-piers-morgan
He said that he is personally against all types of abortion, but that the government does not have the authority to impose his opinion on everyone else.
If only some government workers would try that with smoking, drinking, environmental issues, zoning, building licenses, taxation, free speech against homosexual marriage, and the list goes on and on.
There are a lot of people who are against abortion who would make an exception for rape or incest.
Very deceptive title and spin. Cain didn’t say he was ‘pro-choice’ regarding abortion but regarding the people having a choice to raise the child versus adoption. He was very clear if you read the full transcript he is pro-life in ALL incidences, even rape and incest, something all of our candidates except probably Santorum can’t say.
Good job of deciphering liberal-speak.
It makes me so angry that people refuse to look at context. Morgan asked Cain specifically if he would want his raped daughter/granddaughter to KEEP the baby, and Cain’s comments were in direct response to that scenario - whether a woman should KEEP (versus GIVE UP FOR ADOPTION) a child conceived through rape.
His “government shouldn’t tell people what they have to do” comment was in response to Morgan suggesting that whatever Cain would want his daughter to do in the KEEP VERSUS PUT UP FOR ADOPTION situation is automatically what he would LEGISLATE. Cain said that those social decisions should not be made by government.
Nothing Cain has said (at least that I’ve seen so far)indicates that he supports abortion on demand in any case, including the cases of rape and incest.
AS far as I know, he has implied that if the mother’s life is in danger it is up to the family or the woman to decide what to do. That is entirely consistent with the pro-life view.
But to get to the truth we have to look at the entire context of what was said. Those who are against Cain - whether they are liberal media members or whether they are campaigning for Cain’s opponents - will try to take quotes out of context, and those who don’t bother to look at the entire context will be deceived and/or confused. We must not let that happen.
Cain needs to be aware of that situation and always include the frame of reference when he makes comments so that a comment CAN’T be quoted without including the context in it. For instance, in this case he should have said that government shouldn’t be telling people what they have to do in regards to adoption versus keeping the baby or whether to save the mother’s life - rather than just saying “social decisions”.
Cain walk-back
3 — 2 — 1
His comment about government not telling people what they have to do was not about abortion. It was about whether a raped woman should KEEP the child, or GIVE IT UP FOR ADOPTION. He was asked directly whether he would want his raped daughter to keep the child. His answer was that it would be up to the family to decide that. Morgan said it was important to know what he thinks about this stuff because he would legislate it into policy and Cain said government shouldn’t be deciding those kinds of things for families, so what he would choose (for his own family, according to context) is not what he would force everybody else to choose.
Context is absolutely critical. He was not saying that government shouldn’t tell people whether or not to choose abortion. He was saying government shouldn’t tell people whether to choose ADOPTION.
Cain supporter or not, this is a “trending” line of attack against Herman Cain. I was about to ptost a thread on this article (hit piece by some moonbat tool):
http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/20/herman-cain-missed-the-last-40-years-of-u-s-politics/
but the thought of having to read it again was making me sick.
He has a hard time being clear for some reason. It's not that hard.
Tell us how you will govern not just what you think.
CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why —
MORGAN: No circumstances?
CAIN: No circumstances.
MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.
CAIN: They qualify but —
MORGAN: Rape and incest.
CAIN: Rape and incest.
MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.
CAIN: Ask the tricky question.
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?
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.
****************
Cain was chiding Morgan for mixing the two questions of abortion on the one hand and raising the child on the other hand. He then goes on to say it's not anyone's business whether they decide to raise the child or not.
Still going through the interview. First time I've seen Piers Morgan. He's pretty good.
Exactly what source did you read? Just the Hot Air piece, or did you read a transcript of what Cain actually said?
Night and day difference. He was very clear in what he actually said.
Is he personally against murder, robbery, and drunk driving but not wishing to impose these preferences on anyone else? There goes Herman for me.
It’s the old, “Morality can’t be legislated” nonsense. Law is all about legislating morality. It’s just a matter of what morality is being legislated. ...That said, there is very little a president can do to change abortion laws. What he can do as president is work to change policies, or do away federal funding for abortion. Until we elect a Congress with the courage to legislate against murdering children, and a Supreme Court that recognizes the rights of humans who can’t defend themselves, we will suffer human sacrifice.
and another one - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/herman-cain-on-abortion-pro-choice-and-pro-life/2011/10/19/gIQADJGczL_blog.html
Cain says least respect for Ron Paul. Wouldn’t be a good president because he wants to eliminate too many things. Cain doesnt want to throw out baby with bathwater. Not trying to eliminate, trying to fix.
Thanks. It looks like Tina Korbe deliberately falsified this story in order to damage Cain.
I’m still not a real Cain fan, but it’s obvious from the transcript that it would be the raped mother’s choice, not to kill the baby but to decide whether to bring her up herself or to adopt her out to someone else. That’s the choice Cain is talking about.
That is perfectly legitimate.
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.