Cain to Piers Morgan: I’m anti-abortion yet pro-choice

posted at 10:40 am on October 20, 2011 by Tina Korbe

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.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

IR-MN on October 20, 2011 at 2:33 PM

PP is trying pretty hard to make sure the minorities don’t breed. Eugenics and all.

http://blackgenocide.org/planned.html

quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 2:41 PM

African American Businessman Spends 1M to Urge Blacks to Vote Pro-Life

With the balance of power in Congress hanging in the air, a leading African American businessman says black voters in the United States should put their historical pro-life values above political party. That means voting for pro-life candidates rather than supporting Democratic candidates across the board.

“More and more African Americans are pro-life,” Cain said in a statement LifeNews.com obtained. “Our message to African Americans is simple — it’s time you vote for candidates who support our values.”

Cain will underscore that message with a $1 million advertising campaign in key states and congressional districts targeting black radio programs and urban radio stations young African Americans enjoy. Some of the ads focus on abortion.

The campaign is a second go-round based on a highly successful Ohio campaign in 2004 that helped President Bush garner 17% of the African American vote in the Buckeye State – double his vote total from the 2000 presidential race

http://www.lifenews.com/2006/09/13/nat-2583/

lovingmyUSA on October 20, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Cain just posted this statement on Facebook: “I’m 100% pro-life. End of Story.”

mfrantom on October 20, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!

I suppose Rich Lowrie, B.A. Accounting, phoned him to tell him to correct his “misspoken” statement. Richie is, after all, the only *named* adviser working with Mr. Cain.

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Good grief. People are parsing this man’s words trying to figure out what he meant, when the man himself doesn’t know what he means. Talk about desperate!

If he does know what he means, then he would have said it, and yet he didn’t. The only other explanation beside him being a confused soul, is that he’s two-faced and a liar.

When people don’t speak clearly, it’s a sign that they don’t think clearly, or it’s a sign that they’re dishonest – kind of like what Greenspan did before Congress. Like minds.

Drum on October 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Exactly. Cain has taken waffling to a new level.

INC on October 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Newt’s marital issues won’t matter

YOU ARE WRONG. NO WIFEY # 3 IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR ME AND THEE, PUNCH.

gracie on October 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Contraception is nothing but the murder of millions of potential babies.

Pablo Honey on October 20, 2011 at 1:47 PM

It’s unfortunate too, given the fact that this world would be so much better with another 10 billion Africans and Asians, most in third world countries with abhorrent standards of living.

bayam on October 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM

On Herman Cain’s Facebook 18 minutes ago said, “I’m 100 percent pro-life. End of Story.”

Kokonut on October 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Pokemom, please wipe the dribble off your chin…your man is losing and that makes you a sore loser. Cain has ALWAYS been pro-life…that needle you found in the haystack is poking the hell out of you, isn’t it…

lovingmyUSA on October 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM

I agree in principle with Cain. I am also pro-life, yet don’t want abortion to be illegal either. I want abortion where it belongs as something between a woman, her family and her doctor. Certainly not in the hands of congress or the courts.

Those who say they are against abortion in all cases must agree with Catholic theology which states that God should decide whether a woman giving birth or the unborn child should die. Problem is God usually decides both should die because that’s what frequently happens.

Close the abortion clinics and start a PR campaign against using abortion as a substitute for birth control. If you’re old enough for sex, you should be old enough to figure out how to avoid conception.

erp on October 20, 2011 at 2:52 PM

On Herman Cain’s Facebook 18 minutes ago said, “I’m 100 percent pro-life. End of Story.”

Kokonut on October 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM

But I thought he was pro-choice.

MeatHeadinCA on October 20, 2011 at 2:54 PM

bayam on October 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Yep because brown and black people just materialize in abhorrent conditions for no other reason than being born – it’s inbred so to speak.

quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 2:55 PM

NO WIFEY # 3 IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR ME

gracie on October 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I would take wife number 47 over Michelle Obama

Meh on October 20, 2011 at 2:57 PM

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Rick_Perry_Abortion.htm

BruthaMan on October 20, 2011 at 2:36 PM

That source is from 2002. Romney was entirely pro-abortion in 2002. I assume the earlier link you quoted is citing the same source. Perry’s signature to the pledge is enough for me.

theCork on October 20, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Cain can have whatever position on abortion he’s comfortable with, as far as I’m concerned. All I’m really discussing is why it takes a team of Philadelphia lawyers to figure out what it is.

I still think it’s incorrect to say that he has the same position as Rick Perry. It sounds like Cain is not at all moderate on a personal level. It sounds like he’s against abortion in all circumstances – it sounded like he personally would understand the life of the mother exception for someone else (or not?) but it’s unclear whether he would make it for his own daughter – I’m getting the impression he wouldn’t…?.

Why is this so hard?

Cain’s communication skills need some work, and that’s a criticism he deserves.

capitalist piglet on October 20, 2011 at 2:36 PM

As one who sometimes informs others, that maybe the problem isn’t everyone else, I’m struggling to find what the ‘real’ issue is with his position.

I’m not a lawyer and thought it was clear. He’s against abortion. I watched the video clip. I struggle to see a ‘real’ issue with it. Maybe the problem is me, and not everyone else? Or maybe others are making more out of this than there really is, because they are not going to support him anyway?

BruthaMan on October 20, 2011 at 2:59 PM

As for this statement of Cain’s:

I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.

This is an old Atlantic article from 1975:

On Abortion: A Lincolnian Position

Only one other institution in this country has been treated so evasively, and that is the institution that was nurtured and protected by the government during the first eighty-seven years of our nation’s existence: the institution of slavery….

[Stephen] Douglas’s appeal was not to the fiery pro-slavery minorities in the South, who insisted that slavery was morally right, but to the vast majority in the North, who simply felt uncomfortable talking about the subject. He assured them that they didn’t have to—that they could avoid the subject altogether by leaving it to the democratic process. Let the people decide: if they “want slavery, they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it shall be prohibited.” But what about the rights of slaves? That, Douglas said, was one of those issues that should be left to moralists and theologians. It did not belong in the political or legal realm….

Lincoln kept returning to the question of the humanity of slaves, the question that Douglas ruled out of bounds as essentially “religious.” Everywhere, Lincoln said, even in the South, people knew that slaves were human beings. If southerners really believed that slaves were not human, why did they join in banning the international slave trade, making it a capital offense? And if dealing in human flesh was no different from dealing in hogs or cattle, why was the slave-dealer regarded with revulsion throughout the South?

Here’s the kicker:

Lincoln’s depiction of slavery as a moral cancer became the central theme of his speeches during the rest of the 1850s. It was the warning he meant to convey in his “House Divided” speech, in his seven debates with Douglas in 1858, and in the series of speeches that culminated in the 1860 presidential campaign. In all these he continually reminded his audience that the theme of choice without reference to the object of choice was morally empty.

When that human sperm fertilizes that human egg, a new human being is created. This is a fact of biology. Abortion kills a human being. Abortion is a moral decision—not a “sensitive” one.

INC on October 20, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Pokemom, please wipe the dribble off your chin…your man is losing and that makes you a sore loser. Cain has ALWAYS been pro-life

lovingmyUSA on October 20, 2011 at 2:47 PM

The jury is still out on that one, chump. The world is patiently awaiting for Herman and his book to pop on TV to explain to us all his latest abortion “joke” and how he “misspoke” about the issue. Thankfully we have his Facebook page and you to interpret it all for us What Herman Really Meant to Say Was(TM).

The guy is a joke and would lose in a landslide to Obama.

Show me anything on HA anywhere near as racist as this that didn’t come from Kilgore Trout or another moby.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 20, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Wander into the cain abortion thread.

lorien1973 on October 20, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Really, Lorien? Really?

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

YOU ARE WRONG. NO WIFEY # 3 IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR ME AND THEE, PUNCH.

gracie on October 20, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I guess her arms are not toned enough for you, Gracie.

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 3:05 PM

It seems like Perry would get wasted in a debate against Obama. Hope I’m wrong though.

withmanitisimpossible on October 20, 2011 at 2:31 PM

I think you’re right. He does not do well in debates (an example would be the 2010 gubernatorial primaries), but always manages to rise above it. In Texas. In a national, general election debate, it would be different. He and Obama both are slick talkers though, but Obama is an even slicker one.
Even though the economy is essentially in shambles, and the unemployment rate remains above nine percent, I think Obama will be reelected. That’s not because of pessimism, but because of the fact that he, unfairly, has much on his side. He’s got the minority vote, the media on his side, and the incumbency on his side.
So, all the fighting about who the nominee will be for president is pointless. They really need to focus on expanding their majority in the House and taking over the Senate. What I believe will happen is a repeat of 2004. An enthusiasm from the opposition party, but a weak candidate, ironically, from Massachusetts. I think Obama will win by about 2 to 3 points by the popular vote. It will be a squeaker in Ohio because, let’s face it, even though the economy is bad in Ohio, look at how low Kasich’s numbers are in Ohio. And you know Obama will pander to them with his free handouts speeches. So, I don’t get why people are fighting about who the nominee is going to be. Let’s just face it: this is not a good group to choose from. Much like the 2004 Democratic primary nominees.

NathanG on October 20, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Sorry, but I’m for the victim in rape…

WHICH victim? If there’s a pregnancy, aren’t there two victims?

psrch on October 20, 2011 at 3:14 PM

It’s unfortunate too, given the fact that this world would be so much better with another 10 billion Africans and Asians, most in third world countries with abhorrent standards of living.

Nothing is more precious than life my friend.

Better be born in hellish survival condition than never be born.

Pablo Honey on October 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Newt’s marital issues won’t matter — last time I checked the MSM was crowing about how Newt spends too much money on his third wife. Fail.

Let us not forget that Obama won after sitting in a racist’s church for twenty some-odd years while having not a single life accomplishment to his name.

The abortion issue and national security, on the other hand, will matter and Cain flubbed both answers.

Punchenko

Wrong. They would attack him with that and other things he’s done. Obama had the protection of the media. Newt will not and obama will win. Now who is being a cultist?

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

WHICH victim? If there’s a pregnancy, aren’t there two victims?

psrch

Yes and you should blame the rapist and not the mother if she aborts the baby.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM

That source is from 2002. Romney was entirely pro-abortion in 2002. I assume the earlier link you quoted is citing the same source. Perry’s signature to the pledge is enough for me.

theCork on October 20, 2011 at 2:59 PM

That doesn’t change Perry’s position though. My point was not to disparage Perry, but to draw parallels with Cain’s position to other candidate’s positions.

BruthaMan on October 20, 2011 at 3:18 PM

People are still deciding on who they will vote on a president over the issue of abortion? Really?

What does it matter what the President thinks of abortion? SCOTUS has ruled and until there is a situation where 60 pro-life senators are in power long enough to replace the pro choice justices, this is all just smoke and mirrors.

You want to end abortion? Then get those 60 senators first.

I personally think it will be about the same time hell freezes over.

ButterflyDragon on October 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM

This needed to be seen again. Thank you for a bit of perspective.

Better to worry about what the President can actually *****DO*****.

kim roy on October 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Really, Lorien? Really?

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 3:01 PM

We had some people in this thread saying Cain was getting a pass cuz he’s black.

lorien1973 on October 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Anyone who suggests Cain is pro-choice has to be flat-out ignoring years and years of consistency. The man was a Baptist minister. I think instead of hyperventilating over, and overreacting to, one mixed-up response to one question on one interview on one night of one election season, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

JackForce on October 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

You are right kim roy, but certain people are demanding a perfect candidate when there isn’t one.
They want all or nothing and will get nothing.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Yes and you should blame the rapist and not the mother if she aborts the baby.

Who deserves a longer prison sentence, the rapist or the mother convicted of murder (if the pro-lifers get their way).

Pablo Honey on October 20, 2011 at 3:24 PM

We had some people in this thread saying Cain was getting a pass cuz he’s black.

lorien1973 on October 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Why is he getting a pass? I can’t figure it out. With each gaffe, each mistake, people write him off temporarily, then it’s right back to the kool aid pitcher.

capitalist piglet on October 20, 2011 at 3:30 PM

Better to worry about what the President can actually *****DO*****.

kim roy on October 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

Kim roy apparently you failed to notice watching Obama -that he can do pretty well whatever he choses to do -come judges ruling on Obamacare,or the constitutional limitations on the presidency-or the minor impediment, congress. No one -least of all the establishment GOP is willing to stop him.It merely serves to clog the space reserved for true opposition to the left’s evil.

Don L on October 20, 2011 at 3:32 PM

We had some people in this thread saying Cain was getting a pass cuz he’s black.

lorien1973 on October 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

So? How is that racist?

quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM

And good luck explaining this “reasonable” headline:

Herman Cain Says Jesus Was ‘a Perfect Conservative’ Who Was Condemned By a ‘Liberal Court’

MeatHeadinCA on October 20, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Oh geez. I just know Allah is posting a thread on this even as we speak.

kg598301 on October 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM

certain people are demanding a perfect candidate when there isn’t one.
They want all or nothing and will get nothing.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM

Certain people like this?

They would attack him with that and other things he’s done. Obama had the protection of the media. Newt will not and obama will win. Now who is being a cultist?

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Anyone we have (even Mitt) would be dramatically better than Obama. They will all be the love child of Satan and Hitler by the time the MSM is done with them. This election will be a referendum on the American people. Specifically how many have pulled their heads out of their a$$es and realized they have been lied to. If it’s enough, we win. If not, we lose. Regardless of who the candidate is.

Meh on October 20, 2011 at 3:36 PM

Wrong. They would attack him with that and other things he’s done.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

What are these other things that he has done? Welfare reform? Passing a balanced budget? Being a principle player in one of the greatest economic expansions in US history? Not being tied to the hip of the Bush administration? Actually having ideas and the ability to string together coherent and eloquent sentence?

Obama had the protection of the media. Newt will not and obama will win. Now who is being a cultist?

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

And your nitwit gaffe-machine Cain will dodge the media’s scrutiny? Cain has come out in favor of a new federal tax on the already squeezed middle class and said he would be open to emptying out Gitmo for one hostage. He said we can all buy “used” if we don’t want to get soaked with his new taxes. Cain lost the GE a long, long time ago — about the same time he began opening his mouth on national television with his misleading BS and turnarounds.

Yes, you’re a cultist, “Hard Right”.

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM

certain people are demanding a perfect candidate when there isn’t one.
They want all or nothing and will get nothing.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM

No, I want a competent candidate with a record to show. Herman Cain is neither competent or has a record other than introducing the bacon-cheeseburger pizza at Godfather’s. The man is a joke.

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Wow Punchenko. Could you possibly project more or be more of a hypocrite?
Newt wouldn’t stand a chance and your sycophantic bleating won’t change that.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Newt’s marital issues won’t matter — last time I checked the MSM was crowing about how Newt spends too much money on his third wife. Fail.

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Are you joking? You’ve spent this whole thread talking about how Cain’s abortion views will cost him the social conservative vote, yet you somehow can’t imagine the attack ads juxtaposing Newt’s line of mistresses/wives with his vehement decrying of Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky? Is this actually part of some brilliant satire about Cain hatred?

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 3:42 PM

No, I want a competent candidate with a record to show. Herman Cain is neither competent or has a record other than introducing the bacon-cheeseburger pizza at Godfather’s. The man is a joke.

Punchenko

Less of a joke than you and your boyfriend Newt.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Herman Cain is neither competentmy chosen candidate or has a record other than introducing the bacon-cheeseburger pizza at Godfather’staking a company employing over 10,000 from near-bankruptcy to profitability. The man isI am a joke.

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 3:41 PM

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 3:43 PM

I don’t get the complaints. Herman Cain’s response makes perfect sense to me. I like spinach. Does that mean if I become president, everyone in the U.S. will have to eat spinach whether they like it or not?

stevelockridge on October 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Newt was run out of the Speaker’s position on a rail due to what he said and did. Yet he’s competent? The same guy who thought teaming up with Pelosi was a good idea?

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Newt was run out of the Speaker’s position on a rail due to what he said and did. Yet he’s competent? The same guy who thought teaming up with Pelosi was a good idea?

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Newt was run out of the Speaker’s position on a rail because he was effective. Yes, he has plenty of baggage. As does everyone else. He sat on the couch with Pelosi. Perry could rival Caesar Chavez for Hispandering, Cain puts his foot in his mouth every second, and Mitt has too many liberal positions and flip flops to list. Jesus isn’t available to run this go ’round. I don’t think we should throw a brilliant man like Newt away when all of the other candidates live in glass houses as well.

Meh on October 20, 2011 at 3:55 PM

Pretty obvious to me that, at least in the most recent clip, Cain is saying that in cases of rape & incest he’d leave the decision about abortion to the mother, which was the law of the land in most states pre-Roe v. Wade, but otherwise thinks abortion should be illegal.

Obvious, of course, unless you’re a Mittbot looking for any way to distract people from the two-facedness of your own candidate.

29Victor on October 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Well Cain has “cleared up” his abortive abortion comments …

“I am 100% PRO-LIFE. End of Story”

But … does Herman Cain even know what a “Pro-Life” position is?

Last night he said he was “Pro-Life” … then he went on to explain that the government shouldn’t be able to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion. Is he saying now that the government SHOULD BE ABLE to tell a woman she can’t have an abortion? Or – is he defining himself – along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – as being “Pro-Life” simply because they wouldn’t personally have an abortion because they think it’s wrong?

If it’s the latter that he’s trying to say – does that mean he’s now saying that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are … “PRO-LIFE”? Because that’s their exact position – personally against abortion – but want the woman to have the right to choose.

Is Herman Cain trying to RE-DEFINE the Abortion Issue as he is with the tax system? Is he trying to “replace” the old complicated terms of “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” with something more simpler?

If he is … he’s failing miserably – because the position he’s taken on abortion is the CLASSIC position taken by liberals.

Some of the “Cainlusionals” will say … “Oh no – PRO CHOICE – is the Conservative position because you don’t want government telling people what to do!”

Really? Okay – let’s play this out then …

If “PRO CHOICE” is now a Conservative position…

What is the “PRO LIFE” position? A Liberal position? Has Herman Cain informed Debbie Wasserman Schultz that we Conservatives have stolen their “Pro-Choice” position and now it’s the Democratic LIBERALS who should be protesting outside abortion clinics?

WTF?

Is Herman Cain going to legalize drugs too when he’s President? I think we’re going to need them if we are going to understand his positions on things!!

In fact, we’re gonna need a lot of the HARD STUFF!

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Pretty obvious to me that, at least in the most recent clip, Cain is saying that in cases of rape & incest he’d leave the decision about abortion to the mother

29Victor on October 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Then he’s not “100% Pro Life” as he tweeted this morning.

If he believes in exceptions for rape and incest – that would make him like 80 percentish Pro-Life.

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 4:45 PM

Just to remind everyone:

An innocent person (a fetus) has no right to endanger a woman’s life or health if she was forced into that condition.

In case anyone forgets, pregnancy can be dangerous. It can do permanent damage to a woman. Someone attempting to harm you, whether innocent or not, has no right to do so and can be repelled with deadly force. This includes a fetus.

scotash on October 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JD-sBPBzpmE

He says in the Stossel clip…”No, abortion should not be legal“.

He also says it should be a womans choice.

sharrukin on October 20, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Then he’s not “100% Pro Life” as he tweeted this morning.

If he believes in exceptions for rape and incest – that would make him like 80 percentish Pro-Life.

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 4:45 PM

I agree. But many, many Americans who consider themselves pro-life would agree with him. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that if it came up at the next debate, most of the candidates would hold the same position.

29Victor on October 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM


President Bush: Pro-Life (with ‘three exceptions’)

By @prolifeblogs on February 28, 2006

WASHINGTON, February 28, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Scott McClellan, the principal spokesman for U.S. President George W. Bush said in a press conference yesterday that the President supports abortion in three cases – rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/02/president_bush_5.php

Yeah, I see where he appointed all those Pro Choice judges…

lovingmyUSA on October 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I agree. But many, many Americans who consider themselves pro-life would agree with him. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that if it came up at the next debate, most of the candidates would hold the same position.

29Victor on October 20, 2011 at 4:52 PM

I don’t think Rick Santorum would take that position. And – besides, no other candidate is claiming to be “100 Percent Pro-LIFE” like Cain is.

I mean – the PRO-LIFE position has always had some wiggle room for the life of the mother – etc. But no one who would allow abortion for rape and incest can claim they are “ONE HUNDRED PERCENT” Pro-Life.

That’s contradictory.

Can’t wait until he’s in front of the cameras again. I guess he will either claim he was making a joke (but not really) or – it that doesn’t work – just disavow his previous answer as he did with the GITMO terrorists.

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 4:56 PM

lovingmyUSA on October 20, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Bush had some exceptions in his beliefs on abortion – but he never claimed to be “ONE HUNDRED PERCENT PRO LIFE” either.

Herman Cain – now is.

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 4:57 PM

If you like her, Sarah Palin had the same stance on abortion. Her personal views on abortion were very conservative, like Cain, but she also believed in the power of the people through her support of states rights.

pjean on October 20, 2011 at 5:08 PM

As an engaged pro-lifer who participates on life chains when they happen in my town, I have more respect for the intellectual honesty of someone who says they are pro-choice because they don’t believe that the fetus is a human being (although I believe that is an ignorant position), than for someone who says they are pro-life except in the case of rape and incest. These are horrible crimes and have tragic repercussions for their victims, but they do not negate the reality that a human life has been created. To say that the circumstances of their creation de-humanize them or strip them of their human rights is an indefensible moral position.

neuquenguy on October 20, 2011 at 5:13 PM

If you like her, Sarah Palin had the same stance on abortion. Her personal views on abortion were very conservative, like Cain, but she also believed in the power of the people through her support of states rights.

pjean on October 20, 2011 at 5:08 PM

No she didn’t.

She did not believe in outlawing abortion as Cain does, did, will again, or whatever his answer currently is today.

Cain said…”No, abortion should not be legal“ and he also said it should be a womans choice.

How is that Sarah Palin’s stance on abortion?

sharrukin on October 20, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Wrong. They would attack him with that and other things he’s done. Obama had the protection of the media. Newt will not and obama will win. Now who is being a cultist?

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 3:16 PM

Punchenko lacks the attention span of a cultist, believing whatever the media narrative is within 6 hours of its initiation, and ignoring all clarifying data afterward.

It is best not to waste your time with him.

BKennedy on October 20, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Just to remind everyone:

An innocent person (a fetus) has no right to endanger a woman’s life or health if she was forced into that condition.

In case anyone forgets, pregnancy can be dangerous. It can do permanent damage to a woman. Someone attempting to harm you, whether innocent or not, has no right to do so and can be repelled with deadly force. This includes a fetus.

scotash on October 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

A woman’s body is made for pregnancy and benefits her health in many ways. To compare pregnancy with the actual violence done to a woman’s body through abortion is hideous. Yes, even in the violence of rape, having a full-term pregnancy is much safer for the woman in question than having an abortion. To say otherwise is ignorance. But that’s what we get from PP and the other women’s “rights” groups who wish to keep us ignorant, shamed and afraid.

quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

A woman’s body is made for pregnancy and benefits her health in many ways.

True that, historically 98-99% of woman give birth without dying.

1-2% failure rate is pretty good.

Pablo Honey on October 20, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Grown women aren’t the only ones who get raped. Little girls get raped and get pregnant. Are some of you actually saying that a little girl of 10 should not have an abortion?

I see exactly where Cain is coming from. For me personally, I’m against abortion and he says the same. However, I’m not going to tell a woman or a child that they can’t have an abortion due to rape or incest. Why is that so hard to understand?

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM

The logic of abortion should be as follows:
1) At some point (gestational period or whatever), the law (which may vary from local jurisdiction to local jurisdiction) recognizes the child in question as a person, at which point abortion is homicide.
2) Abortions not considered homicides are regulated simply on the basis of consumer protection for the mother.
3) Abortions considered homicides are treated like other homicides, which is to say that there will be cases that are prosecuted as murder, and cases that are excused as justifiable homicide (such as self-defense). Some gray area may exist.
4) The federal government should set an uncontroversial point of person-hood (likely some level of viability, but generally something that receives about 2/3 public support), which states and municipalities able to establish earlier times as they see fit.

Note that the above logic is capable of accommodating the extremes of the argument, from all abortions to no abortions, by leaving the time of person-hood and conditions of prosecution variable. It does not, however, leave much room for special exceptions for rape or incest, as the nature of conception does not figure into it.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Grown women aren’t the only ones who get raped. Little girls get raped and get pregnant. Are some of you actually saying that a little girl of 10 should not have an abortion?

I see exactly where Cain is coming from. For me personally, I’m against abortion and he says the same. However, I’m not going to tell a woman or a child that they can’t have an abortion due to rape or incest. Why is that so hard to understand?

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM

If abortions are allowed in the case of incest or rape, then disallowing one at the same level of gestation and danger to the mother is simply tyranny. Once you have determined that the child is old enough to have a right to live that overrides the mother’s license to kill it, the crimes of it’s father do not figure into consideration.
Otherwise, you are simply saying that you wish to punish loose women rather than protecting the life of an unborn child.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Just to remind everyone:

An innocent person (a fetus) has no right to endanger a woman’s life or health if she was forced into that condition.

In case anyone forgets, pregnancy can be dangerous. It can do permanent damage to a woman. Someone attempting to harm you, whether innocent or not, has no right to do so and can be repelled with deadly force. This includes a fetus.

scotash on October 20, 2011 at 4:47 PM

A woman’s body is made for pregnancy and benefits her health in many ways. To compare pregnancy with the actual violence done to a woman’s body through abortion is hideous. Yes, even in the violence of rape, having a full-term pregnancy is much safer for the woman in question than having an abortion. To say otherwise is ignorance. But that’s what we get from PP and the other women’s “rights” groups who wish to keep us ignorant, shamed and afraid.

quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 5:41 PM

These statements are not inconsistent. The crux is that some pregnancies are dangerous to the mother, while most are not, and the level of danger can usually be determined early on.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM

If abortions are allowed in the case of incest or rape, then disallowing one at the same level of gestation and danger to the mother is simply tyranny. Once you have determined that the child is old enough to have a right to live that overrides the mother’s license to kill it, the crimes of it’s father do not figure into consideration.
Otherwise, you are simply saying that you wish to punish loose women rather than protecting the life of an unborn child.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 6:22 PM

You conveniently didn’t comment on the fact that children are raped either by strangers or incest and get pregnant. Would you force a pregnancy on a mere child? This is a decision for a family not for you, me or a government to make and I believe that is what Cain was talking about.

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Pablo Honey on October 20, 2011 at 5:59 PM

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Abortion is not freedom – it is desperation on full display. A woman wants an abortion like an animal wants out of a trap. It will gnaw its own leg off to be free. Anyone who has seen the emotional, physical and spiritual devastation from abortion will know what I mean.

I understand the emotion behind these difficult examples, which are always trod out when abortion is at issue. But the facts from PP itself show that abortions from all of these types of cases combined account for a very small percentage of all the abortions they perform.
These examples are a way to scare people into believing that abortion is necessary in desperate cases. Most people are scared about how they would react in these circumstances, so it is easy to prey upon their fear in order to make the case for abortion. Rape and incest are a horrible violent tragedy and the women who suffer deserve more than platitudes that an abortion will make it all okay, when actually it will just add to the victimization.

The circumstances of a baby’s conception do nothing to dehumanize the baby or changes the brutality of what happens in an abortion.

quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 6:39 PM

Punchenko lacks the attention span of a cultist, believing whatever the media narrative is within 6 hours of its initiation, and ignoring all clarifying data afterwards.

BKennedy on October 20, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Is that what we call Cain’s flip-flops? Are we calling them… clarifying data?

So when Mitt offers up a new position out of political necessity — much like what Cain is doing now on a daily basis — we call it “clarifying data”. You must be one of the paid Hacks for Herman, BKennedy — either that or shill pushing him to help Romney.

What a joke.

Punchenko on October 20, 2011 at 7:04 PM

You conveniently didn’t comment on the fact that children are raped either by strangers or incest and get pregnant. Would you force a pregnancy on a mere child? This is a decision for a family not for you, me or a government to make and I believe that is what Cain was talking about.

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:34 PM

No, I did comment on that.
Such considerations are irrelevant. If you want a rape victim to be able to get an abortion, then clearly you do not think the fetus in question is a person — which is something that should not depend on the nature of it’s conception. As such, the remedy is that the time of personhood has to be pushed back for all fetuses in order to accommodate the that case.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM

We had some people in this thread saying Cain was getting a pass cuz he’s black.

lorien1973 on October 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM

So? How is that racist?
quiz1 on October 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM

As it is, without anything offered to substantiate the claim – for example, a GOP leader saying “He’s black, lets give him a pass” – it is a purely race-based opinion.

whatcat on October 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM

You conveniently didn’t comment on the fact that children are raped either by strangers or incest and get pregnant. Would you force a pregnancy on a mere child? This is a decision for a family not for you, me or a government to make and I believe that is what Cain was talking about.

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:34 PM

No, I did comment on that.
Such considerations are irrelevant.
Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Not if you’re the family of the young girl in question – or the girl herself. Such things are only irrelevant in theory.

whatcat on October 20, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Statement from Herman Cain:

“Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.

My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.

As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100 percent pro-life. End of story.

I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.

I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.

Elisa on October 20, 2011 at 8:27 PM

I also heard him on Sean Hannity today and he explained this very well and he explained 999 much better, including his plans for lower income people. I guess because he was given more than 30-60 seconds to explain. lol

Elisa on October 20, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Not if you’re the family of the young girl in question – or the girl herself. Such things are only irrelevant in theory.

whatcat on October 20, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Which means you only object to abortion because you want to punish loose women, and don’t consider the fetus to have rights. Otherwise, you would be arguing that it is always permissible, rather than coming up with exceptions.

Count to 10 on October 20, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Punchenko lacks the attention span of a cultist, believing whatever the media narrative is within 6 hours of its initiation, and ignoring all clarifying data afterward.

It is best not to waste your time with him.

BKennedy

I found him to be nothing more than a troll. How f’d up is somone who makes a point to go on EVERY Cain thread to bash him?
I’m wondering if it’s really about race with punchenko.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 9:12 PM

If we’re going to torpedo Cain for being pro-choice, we deserve Marxist tyranny.

elfman on October 20, 2011 at 9:34 PM

If we’re going to torpedo Cain for being pro-choice, we deserve Marxist tyranny.

elfman on October 20, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Best comment of the week. I couldn’t agree with you more.

Our side needs to wake up and have some guts and not be afraid. Or we deserve the coming Obama disaster or the slow ruination of our country with moderates.

I’m all for examining and criticizing our candidates. But when it gets ridiculous or goes too far, then we are just eating our own.

It’s one thing to question his experience or 999 plan. It’s another to pretend he isn’t 100% prolife or say he isn’t intelligent or capable.

Elisa on October 20, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Speaking as someone who is pro-choice but anti-abortion (and I mean that seriously) I don’t know why the even bother to answer that question anymore. Pro-choice voters won’t vote for a Republican regardless of what he says, and Pro-Life voters would elect a communist dictator if they thought he’d ban abortion. There’s nothing to be gained by taking either position, so why bother?

Browncoatone on October 21, 2011 at 3:12 AM

You conveniently didn’t comment on the fact that children are raped either by strangers or incest and get pregnant. Would you force a pregnancy on a mere child? This is a decision for a family not for you, me or a government to make and I believe that is what Cain was talking about.

moonsbreath on October 20, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Arguing like a liberal 101: Pick an extreme and rare, but emotional, case, and base your entire argument on it.

The first and obvious question is, how old of a child? “Child” as defined by the federal government can go all the way to age 26 now.

Obviously, there’s no substantive reason to treat the rape of a 24-year old woman as any different from the rape of any other adult. But the whole point is to use the ambiguity of “child” to paint opponents to exceptions for rape and incest as heartless.

Meanwhile, this case is used to argue for the destruction of inconvenient human life. Which seems far more “heartless” to me.

Killing a child because the mother was raped is not logical or moral. The only exceptions should be when the life of the mother has to be weighed against the life of the child. Or, in practical terms, tubal pregnancies that never stood a chance of live birth anyway.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 21, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6