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.
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
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.
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.
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.
You have to listen very carefully, because honestly I was fooled the first two times too, but what Cain is actually referring to is whether the government should force a woman to raise a child from rape or incest. He had already stated he was pro life with no exceptions.
But I don’t know anyone who says that the government should force a woman to raise a child that she wasn’t allowed to abort.
The issue was forced parenting not abortion
The ANTI-CAIN Campaigners:
SeekAndFind
I personally enjoy a good argument
Their motto:
“We besmirch and malign because that’s how we’re defined.”
Cain exemplifies an important distinction. An individual or a governmental body can believe something is bad, but that doesn’t mean a law needs to be made forbidding it.
Typical of so many Leftwingtards (e.g. even Biden) he just doesn't know how to leave it alone.
Cain would be well advised to get a prohibitory order against Piers as soon as possible.
THAT'S IT: No confusion. you can't "bring up" a baby you've killed. The real question is: Why is Tina Korbe and HotAit lying about what Cain said and patronizing him for being "unclear"? Are they carrying water for Mittens like RedState has?
Conservatives need to make it very clear they are NOT talking about life-of-mother when they talk about getting rid of these rape/incest conditions. I know several independents who are horrified because they think pro-lifers are talking about banning it in ALL conditions (essentially what Cain said). The government does not need to make the call that the women is sick enough and not able to carry to term. In that case only is the word ‘choice’ valid. Because it’s essentially a choice who lives or dies.
Just watched the entire 40 min interview.
Anyone who can single out the very short segment on abortion and say that Herman was flip flopping was NOT listening!
While he IS PRO LIFE from conception, he was emphasizing that in the extreme cases of rape and incest, he did not believe it was government’s role to intervene.
This was an AWESOME interview. I would recommend everyone watch the entire thing.
The interviewer DID try to catch him off guard, and was UNSUCCESSFUL!