D
Dranu
Guest
Again, he could easly easly be referring to adoption and government enforcement of adoption.
- Status
S
seekerz
Guest
Surely, you jest!
C
CMatt25
Guest
Exactly the problem I have with the so called “states rights” crowd who say they just want Roe overturned and suggest they simply want the abortion debate returned to the states. When of course they want abortion banned nationally and to take away a woman’s right to choose even in cases of rape and incest or to save her own life. And won’t stop at anything less if a state settles the issue to their dislike.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
I’ll take either over what we have now, as long as it goes through the proper channels.
D
Dranu
Guest
No I do not. Some of the lines (my emphasis):
*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.
*
Now I can see how one could interpret him as saying the government should not interfere in preventing an abortion there but it could easily refer to adoption and its not reasonable that he is taking a pro-choice position categorically at all. Now most politicians don’t seem to have the backbone to publicly promote government prevention of abortion in rape and incest cases (unfortunately because few support this appropriate government intervention), but I would be careful of the assumptions being made here about what is being discussed.
Anyhow, even if he is talking about abortion, given the state of the Supreme Court, this next election will be crucial and such a distinction on that issue would not likely prevent the nomination of a Justice who will favor overturning Roe.
D
Dranu
Guest
I suppose this is a sort of side issue, but you speak as if it is merely a pretext on those peoples end (people such as myself). This is not true. You conflate our religious moral agendas with how we perceive what the law is. Legally, it returning to the states is how it ought to be when we consider what the law is. Roe is just horrible legal reasoning along with it’s misbegotten mother Griswold (the talk of penumbras coming together sounds more like a ritual summoning than legal reasoning…) . Now I would love legislation banning such selfish slaughter of innocents wherever I can get it, but that is probably best left to the legislature than the bench (and shame on them and the voters for them not backing a pro-life amendment). I am not interested in engaging in the same treason to the laws of the land that the Justices in Roe and Griswold engaged in even on such a serious topic as abortion.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Ok I’d assume then you and bbarrick, et al, would be perfectly happy to end the debate for good if all 50 state legislatures approved abortion and same sex marriages. However I don’t see that happening in states where same sex marriage has been approved. So there’s no reason for me to expect it to be any different with the abortion issue.
D
Dranu
Guest
I, like the abolitionist Republicans of the Civil War Era, probably would not be happy until we had a Constitutional amendment banning the practice.
S
seekerz
Guest
I do see your point. On the other hand, the question was about abortion, so if his statements were referring to adoption he should have said so; even after that interview, the opportunity existed. Nothing wrong in making assumptions based on what information he has provided - unless he cares to clarify.
T
TMC
Guest
Here is Cain’s “clarifying” statement:
I think that helps, but it does not really clarify things. I think its dubious that Cain thought Morgan was asking him if the President could order people to do or not do certain otherwise legal things. The statement clarifies his view on how to select judges, and on funding Planned Parenthood, which is helpful. By why can’t Cain simply say one what his position is, why can’t he just say one of these 4 things: 1. Abortion should be illegal always and everywhere. 2. Abortion should be illegal except when the life of the mother is threatened. 3. Abortion should be illegal except when the life of the mother is threatened and in cases of rape and incest. 4. I personally believe abortion is wrong, but I believe that the government has only a limited ability to order people how to make decisions on this senstifve issue. His “clarification” is compatible with all four of these positions, and his statements in the interview sound a lot more like number 4 then they do like number 1. He needs to explain where he really stands.
E
estesbob
Guest
You seem to operating under the false assumption that “states rights” means once the State has pased a law everyone has to support it. Thats not true.
C
Cider
Guest
Cain either needs a new campaign manager or he needs to listen to the one he has. He keeps shooting himself in the foot. I just saw him interviewed again on this issue on America Live and he could have pulled off a spin if he had just said I was referring to the families decision to raise the child or give it up for adoption.
Instead he makes some bizarre statement about how he meant that families are going to decide what they are going to decide and that if abortion were illegal they make that choice. And says he meant that families aren’t thinking about what Gov thinks on the issue and they aren’t asking him.
Instead he makes some bizarre statement about how he meant that families are going to decide what they are going to decide and that if abortion were illegal they make that choice. And says he meant that families aren’t thinking about what Gov thinks on the issue and they aren’t asking him.
C
Cider
Guest
They weren’t about adoption, he could have used that out today when asked to clarify and adoption never even came up, he did not say one word about referring to adoption.
J
juliee
Guest
Herman Cain in New Interview: Abortion Should Not be Legal
Washington, DC – Herman Cain has given a new interview in which he explains his pro-life views on abortion and gives some insight as to why he made some “pro-choice” sounding comments in a CNN interview this week.
lifenews.com/2011/10/21/herman-cain-in-new-interview-abortion-should-not-be-legal/
Washington, DC – Herman Cain has given a new interview in which he explains his pro-life views on abortion and gives some insight as to why he made some “pro-choice” sounding comments in a CNN interview this week.
lifenews.com/2011/10/21/herman-cain-in-new-interview-abortion-should-not-be-legal/
S
Sherry_G
Guest
May God bless Herman Cain and bring him through the process and into the White House in 2012. The evil one will continue to try anything and everything to thwart Mr. Cain’s efforts. Please join in prayer and offer up his name during petitions at every Mass.
K
kubark
Guest
Herman Cain seems to be the candidate of the week. Sort of like Rick Perry was a few weeks ago. Let’s hope that Herman Cain does NOT get the nomination. The man knows how to deliver a sound bite, but would be a disaster for the economy and a disaster for foreign policy. Obama would easily defeat Herman in a general election. Ron Paul exposed Herman as a conservative traitor for his support of the TARP and his refusal to support an independent audit of the Federal Reserve. Add to that the erroneous calculations behind his 999 plan as well as his unproven track record on abortion. Ron Paul is the most pro-constitution and pro-life candidate running for president, and has the voting record to prove it. Ron Paul may not be the best looking or most charming candidate on stage, but he is the most educated and the most courageous and speaks the truth that some of us do not want to hear. He also has the best chance of beating Obama in a general election. No wonder he is being ignored to the point of not even being allowed to make his closing remarks in the last debate (for which Rich Santorum came to his defense). Prediction: any candidate OTHER than Ron Paul will be defeated by Obama in the general election.
D
Dranu
Guest
Seekerz was more responding to me as he was not taking the position that it was adoption. I suppose you are right though now that Cain has come out and clarified. I really doubt we have much to worry about given his statements (that he would veto Planned Parenthood legislation and appoint judges that would overturn the SDP right Roe v. Wade conjured).seekerz:
They weren’t about adoption, he could have used that out today when asked to clarify and adoption never even came up, he did not say one word about referring to adoption.
S
SwordofLight
Guest
What is clear is the Cain consistently flubs and later on says that he was mis-interpreted. He is just saying whatever he thinks people want to hear to get him elected.
It was clearly a pro-choice comment, and he will simply spend the rest of the campaign saying “I am pro-life”, without ever articulating what he means when he says that.
He keeps flip flopping on the Federal Reserve, Al-Awaki killing, and now abortion. All this within the last few months, not years ago. It’s clear he doesn’t have what it takes to be President.
It was clearly a pro-choice comment, and he will simply spend the rest of the campaign saying “I am pro-life”, without ever articulating what he means when he says that.
He keeps flip flopping on the Federal Reserve, Al-Awaki killing, and now abortion. All this within the last few months, not years ago. It’s clear he doesn’t have what it takes to be President.
K
kykid
Guest
As you may or may not know, if a woman is raped, there is always the option of having a DNC. This is a different procedure from abortion, which usually occurs later in the process. Without speaking for him, I think that this is the point Mr. Cain was trying to make when he said that he favored the government staying out of this very personal decision.
M
mlund
Guest
It’s hard to take that claim seriously after Mr. Cain already came out and clarified exactly what he thinks a Pro-Life president ought to (and ought not to) do. Giving me Pro-Life justices and vetoing Federal funding for abortion is what I’m looking for in a president.
That’s a lot more important than flubbing a response to a hostile interview question that juxtaposed aborting a child and having to “raise that baby” like it was a binary equation.
- Marty Lund
- Status