Posted on 10/24/2011 7:24:06 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
While I don’t believe Cain is one of them, there are those who claim pro-life status while also maintaining that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized. They use the “I’m personally opposed to abortion but wouldn’t impose that belief on others” argument popularized by former New York governor Mario Cuomo in a famous 1984 Notre Dame University speech. But it cuts no ice. When you advocate allowing the choice to have an abortion, it is by definition the pro-choice position.
The reality is that being “personally opposed” to abortion doesn’t make one unique. There are no politicians campaigning to resurrect the Inca practice of sacrificing children during difficult times to appease the gods; there are no prominent figures giving speeches entitled “How Abortion Brightens My Day.” The personal-opposition argument is simply a dodge — and one you could apply to anything. Child abuse? Sure, I’m personally opposed. But if my neighbor wants to mangle his naughty son, well, I won’t impose my beliefs on him.
But what of rape and incest? Horrible crimes both, there certainly is pressure to accept abortion in such cases. Yet to do so is to lose the abortion debate. This is because the pro-life position hinges on two simple principles:
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
That was the question that was asked of Cain.
Unbelievable.
Go look at the question Cain was asked. He was asked about "bringing up" the child in plain English.
Read the damn question!!
What was the excuse for the appearance on FOX this morning then?
I know what the question was, why did he answer that it’s not the governments business to tell the family what to do. His ANSWER is where the problem arises, as was his answer on Stossel, and again this morning on FOX where he said he was pro-life but it’s not the governments business. That is the SAME position of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. Now you want to support someone who is not a strong supporter of life, that’s your business but don’t try to tell me he stands for life when all he has done for days is retreat.
You can watch the whole exchange here: http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/do-we-really-know-who-herman-cain-is/
I'm betting there is something very unique in his "closet" on this issue.
And another way of saying he's pro-choice.
If you knew what Morgan's question was, you wouldn't be asking the question that you are asking.
The question was about "brining up" a child, not about aborting one.
His ANSWER is where the problem arises, as was his answer on Stossel
Read the Stossol transript...
Cain: No abortion should not be legal. I believe in the sanctity of life.
The pure misanthropic evil of elective abortion (any abortion not strictly necessary to save the mother's life) is such a moral absolute and abomination in the eyes of our Creator it DOES NOT BELONG in the arbitrary dealings of political skulduggery!
But me and Cain KNOW it is in the political discussion and that's a damn shame but their ain't nothing Cain and I can do about it. But as solid pro-life conservatives we KNOW abortion does not belong there.
Good job.
And he came out in favor of a human life amendment. Of course, he claimed he could “sign” the amendment, which he can’t because Presidents do not sign amendments. But it was a start.
Except then he told Gretchen Carlson this morning that abortion should NOT be a part of the political discussion. So just after he put out the abortion fire (finally), he lit it up again. Not many pro-lifers would agree that abortion shouldn’t be part of the discussion.
Remember when Mitch Daniels said we should “declare a truce” on abortion and other social issues? That ended his campaign before it began.
Cain SAID what question he thought he was answering, and that his answer was about abortion (not adoption as a few of his supporters still claim). It’s like they like their own fiction more than Cain’s truth.
Mark Steyn summed up Cain’s problem perfectly in an article today: “there are whole areas of public policy in which he simply has no interest. None.”
It is unfathomable to me how a person who is “100% pro-life”, and has been for years, and who has run before as a pro-life candidate, could make a bigger mess out of the question. And saying that abortion should not be part of the discussion at all? (Gretchen Carlson: “Should abortion be part of the political discussion?” Herman Cain: “No it should not, quite frankly.”)
Of course, I’m sure his supporters will have a great fairy tale to spin about how this question means something different, or he’s being taken out of context, or “look, squirrel”.
You should read what Cain SAID he took the question to mean, and what his answer meant. He didn’t think it was about adoption, and he didn’t answer it that way. He said it was about abortion, and he explained his answer.
But I guess Cain is lying about it as well? When you don’t even accept your own Candidate’s explanations, and substitute your own hypothesis instead, you have to ask yourself why you’d rather make things up than believe your own candidate.
But to interpret his answer as an answer to THAT interpretation of the question is absurd, because his answer didn’t match; he said “NO”. Why would he say “NO”, that he didn’t want his kid to raise the baby? Why would he say the government shouldn’t be involved, when the question was about what HE would want?
Not that it matters — Cain has explained how he interpreted the question, and what his answer was about, and it was about abortion, not adoption. Rather than believe their own candidate, some supporters have decided to attack other freepers who do.
A better question would be, "Why would a freeper attack Cain who has a 100% record in support of life and has stated unequivicolly that he does not support abortion at any time? and would halt funding to Planned Parenthood and appoing judges with a pro-life philosophy"
You will twist as hard as you can to find fault in a contextual response and ignore his record and clear cut statement of position. You behave like you are more interested in formulating his position that taking the clear cut evidence of it.
I’ve twisted nothing. When the incident occured, I argued that his answer didn’t fit with the claims of his supporters that he was talking about adoption. Then Cain came out and said he was talking about abortion.
The only person twisting is you — or at least, arguing that Cain is lying about what he was talking about.
The question is why? Why will you not accept Cain’s own explanation for what his answer was about? Why do you feel the need to make up a different story for him?
I posted Cain's exact words and used plain English to find the meaning.
If you have new quotes from Cain then add them to the discussion instead of making things up about me. Add to that Cain is not "my candidate" to the point that I don't criticize him. I've criticized Cain constantly on his national sales tax, for example.
So that's two things YOU made up.
Hypocritical, ironic and idiotic was your post, Charles.
I am not comparing human beings to liquor. What I am considering is the enforce-ability of a law vs. the effect of societal pressure, scorn, taboos, etc. Now that so very many women have actually had abortions, they are very vested in seeing it as not murder. They will lie to themselves. I am suggesting that some things are eradicated most effectively by societal norms, shame, derision, disapproval. People now proudly announce their abortions. You can’t make people accept that abortion is murder merely by passing a LAW...it must be done in a much more invasive way in order to make them see it. How is it enforceable at least for the first 5 or 6 months? Not a soul has to be informed and the woman can totally keep her secret to herself. I am suggesting that, while we sit around and argue about a LAW that years are lost where we could be doing things societally that would bring back awareness, shame, etc. Laws seem to be selectively enforced in this country any more anyway and have often become a joke. So, no, I am not comparing liquor and human life, rather I am trying to consider which things would actually address the issue more effectively and quickly. Smoking was not made illegal, but little by little it has been made almost taboo. And no, I am not now comparing smoking to human life either. What I am looking at is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
If made legal people would still not be killing their spouses any more than currently because as a society we have strong taboos against such things. It is more than frowned upon. We have a situation in our current society where many, many people are not the least bit ashamed of having had an abortion. I should think the goal would be to stop abortion through societal norms, shame etc. rather than to punish it AFTER the fact which is the case with murder of the spouse.The trick is to convince the majority that abortion is murder. This can be done I think with activism and with science too. But, if it IS the same as murdering of a spouse then do you propose that women be put to death or sent to prison for life or for a very long time or what? We can’t very well say that it is murder and then make a light penalty for it. Or, maybe we can, I don’t know. Things seem pretty upside down in this country.
Herman Cain Martha McCallum interview:
“Look, let’s go back,” Cain told the America Live program. “See, he was asking me two questions. My position on abortion has been the same — on pro-life — has been the same throughout this campaign. And that is, I am pro-life from conception and I don’t believe in abortion. When he then tried to pigeon-hole me on my granddaughter being there as a victim of rape, then what would I do?”See. Nothing about adoption. Nothing about him saying government shouldn't be involved in forcing women to adopt. Rather, it was about abortion, and he was saying that if a family has a daughter who was raped, they aren't going to be thinking about whether government has made it illegal or not, or what the President thinks.“The only point I was trying to make: A lot of families will be in that position and they are not going to be thinking, “Well, what does the government want me to do?” My position is no abortion. My position is no abortion. But all I was trying to point out was take the typical family in this country and you don’t know what they might do in the heat of the moment,” Cain explained.
He continued:
Cain replied, “No. No, I do not believe abortion should be legal in this country if that’s the question. I’m consistent with that.”I'm not saying that this means Cain thinks it's OK for families to make that decision, or to ignore the law. I have no idea whether he's saying we can't enforce anti-abortion law, or just that he thought a question about what a family might do meant he should explain that people don't think about government when they make personal choices.“Look, abortion should not be legal,” Cain said a moment later. “That is clear,” he said, adding that anyone who wanted to get an abortion would be breaking the law by doing so: “But if that family made a decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision.”
What I DO know is that Cain has conclusively put to bed the argument that HE THOUGHT HE WAS answering a question about adoption.
At this point, it makes no difference what the question looked like; it doesn't matter that his answer made NO SENSE if you thought he was answering about adoption (I explained that before his clarification days ago -- he later in that Morgan interview said his view was unique, and a view that government shouldn't force people to raise children isn't unique, as nobody has ever argued they should).
All that matters now is that the candidate has TOLD us what he was thinking, and what question he was answering -- and it wasn't about raising the kid or putting it up for adoption, it was about them getting an abortion without regard to what the government thought.
Since then, he has also said he wants abortion to be illegal, and he said he would support a constitutional amendment (unfortunately, he said he could SIGN the amendment, which showed an unfortunate lack of understanding of the job of President, but that's another issue).
Oh, and I apologize for assuming you were a Cain supporter.
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.