Rick Santorum Blasts Herman Cain for Being ‘Pro-Choice,’ Cain Rebuts
- Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:57pm by
Tiffany Gabbay
- Print »
- Email »
On Thursday GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum accused rival Herman Cain of being “pro-choice,“ like ”members the liberal left,” eliciting a Twitter response from Cain who wrote, “I’m 100% pro-life. End of story.”
Santorum‘s assertion came on the heels of a Wednesday night interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, in which Cain explained his pro-life stance, even in cases of rape or incest.
“I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances,” Cain said.
But earlier Thursday, The Blaze reported that Santorum isn‘t the only one who finds Cain’s abortion stance confusing.
When Morgan asked how Cain would feel if a member of his family were raped and if he would want that family member to raise the child, Cain said it is “not the government‘s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision.”
“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,” Cain told Morgan.
“It gets down to the family and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.”
“The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decision that they need to make,” Cain added.
Morgan, who seemed surprised, called Cain’s views a “departure” from those normally seen in politics. He then told Cain that, if he were to become president, his “views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.”
“No they don’t,” Cain replied plainly.
“I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.”
In response, Santorum released the following statement, comparing Cain’s “position” with those held by John Kerry, President Barack Obama and “many others on the liberal left”:
“Herman Cain said that he believes life begins at conception, but that it’s up to the individual to decide whether or not to terminate that life. And I find it gravely troubling that Herman believes it’s a life, but that he doesn’t consider it a life worth fighting for.
As the author of the partial birth abortion ban and other pro-life pieces of legislation, this is the exact mentality myself and other true pro-life advocates fought against. In fact, Herman’s pro-choice position is similar to those held by John Kerry, Barack Obama and many others on the liberal left. No, Herman, it is not ‘whatever they decide,’ this is an innocent human life. It is unconscionable for Herman to run for the nomination of the Party that stands in defense of Life while showing disregard for the sanctity of Life. You cannot be both personally against abortion while condoning it – you can’t have it both ways. We must defend the defenseless, period.”
In response, Cain released the following statement:
“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% 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.”
More on the transcription of his comments here.
Do you believe Herman Cain’s personal views on abortion reveal that he is truly “pro-choice,” or can on be pro-life and share Cain’s views on government involvement as it pertains to abortion? Please weigh in below.
(h/t: CBN)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 582 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (391)
vehoae
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:33pmWhat’s wrong with these idiot Republicans? I thought you Republicans were opposed to big government? I agree wholeheartedly with Cain’s pro-life stand, with government keeping out of it! Not one of you will be standing beside me when I answer to God for my life decisions. Just me and God. The government should cease dictating our personal decisions. And it should cease spending tax money to pay for abortions in this country, and for the millions of abortions it is underwriting throughout the Continent of Africa. Abortion is a personal decision and must be paid for by that person – not by the government (aka, U.S. taxpayers).
Making 100% of society’s personal decisions (including health care) — that is all part of the United Nations’ AGENDA 21 which, unfortunately, is supported all parties in Congress and local/state/federal governments. And obviously by jerks like Santorum.
Don’t know what AGENDA 21 is? Newt Gingrich knows what it is and has promised to eliminate the USA’s connection to it. Become aware: http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/
Lord, come quickly.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:04pmthe whole “rape” and “incest” portion of abortion is a crock of poo.
Check the stats on it, and see how many abortions happen each year because of rape and incest. People abort because they want to run around having sex, then decide they do not want the baby they produced, so they murder it.
And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:39pm“Abortion is a personal decision ”
So is rape. Your point?
Do you think the government has NO role in defending the weak and helpless?
Report Post »jv
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:28pmI’m afraid I am not as trusting as most. The consequences are too important and we do not need another Souter in the Supreme Court. The problem is Cain’s language is confusing and Rick Santorum is right in pointing it out. And it is hard for me to accept that anyone who truly is pro-life would say the things he did in the Morgan interview. Cain now says he is 100% Pro-life. End of story. But I’ve heard this statement before by others who were anything but. McCain for one comes to mind.
Don’t get me wrong. I liked Cain and was willing to overlook a lot of previous confusing statements, But this issue is very important than all the others. Its a litmus test to me for any candidate because if they can’t get this one right how can they be expected to get anything right. (Obama is a prime example).
So I am now stuck wondering from his statements if Cain even knows what being 100% Pro-life is. And until I hear him say unequivacally that government DOES have the right to step in to prevent the taking of an innocent life (and continue to hear him say it) I’m afraid I am going to have to step away and opt for a viable candidate whose pro-life stance is not so nebulous. Sorry mister Cain. I had high hopes for you but Santorum has just won my support.
Report Post »oneshiner
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:44pmHerman Cain is for pro life. Santorum is a classic jerk to make a deal out of this made up lie. I’ve lost all respect for Santorum, and this really takes the cake.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:25pmoneshiner,
you have zero credibility to defend Cain’s pro-life position as you yourself take the position that you don‘t care if a woman has an abortion as long as you don’t have to pay for it, the libertarian pro-choice stance.
You’re not fooling anyone.
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:27pm@oneshiner <<< Oh Gez more of the same drones, only this time for Cain not obama.. He can do no wrong , huh ? At this point, he can put on a burka and scream Alah Akbar and you would still stand beside him.. This is how we got the last idiot in there..
Report Post »stopspendingourmoney
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:21amHerman Cain is unelectable and his 999 plan has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, Ron Paul’s plan is much better, he has allot more support and he has been right on everything he has said about Tarp bailouts housing and the economy, he was right all along, look and see where Cain stands on the feds and tarp, he is just another tool for the elites, wake up Cainites!! he is not the man he is just more of the same, Ron Paul is who we need at this time and he is pro life. Ron Paul 2012. Cain will be just another nail in America’s coffin possibly the last.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:21amLIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
You cannot protect Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness until you protect LIFE FIRST! That is the role of the Federal Government!
Herman is wrong! It is the Federal Government’s job to protect ALL life and Life as he said begins at conception. A woman who is carrying child has a LIFE inside her that has the same inalienable rights as she does: LIFE LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. A woman aborting a Life is violating the 3 basic principles of our country!
Any “conservative” saying it is the “woman’s“ choice or ”family’s” choice as Cain clearly did several times is ignorant or as Cain would say lacks knowledge of it. Maybe Cain should call up a Constitutionalist so they can explain it to him! Once Government and we as a people begin to devalue life soon after Liberty and pursuit of happiness will cease to exist as we see today. Without life you have no Liberty and without Liberty you cannot pursue Happiness. That is what it is all about!
Herman is dead wrong on this and those defending him are wrong as well!
@Kryptonite
Ron Paul is not for States determining this issue for he clearly explains as the Founders Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness comes from God. At conception that Life is to be protected by the Federal Government just as your life is to be protected. Quit trying to smear Ron Paul falsely aka lying!
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
Report Post »Al J Zira
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:14am@stopspendingourmoney: Ron Paul may be the “guy we need” as you say but he will never win a general election against Obama. Once he starts spouting his views on funding for social programs and how he’ll eliminate them, out the door goes every liberal and independent vote. Right now a lot of voters from both sides are ticked at Obama for a number of reasons and to throw away those potential defectors by putting up Ron Paul would be ridiculous. Amazing how Ron Paul wins every debate by guys like you that like to jump on the internet and repeatedly cast votes for him.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 4:40amSANTORUM: YOU are just a punk. I used to have respect for you, but you’re like the guy trying to climb a mountain without a rope or spikes…so you take pot-shots. HERMAN CAIN is 100% PRO LIFE AND HE HAS BEEN forever. http://www.lifenews.com/2006/09/13/nat-2583/ check that out. NO one running for office can claim they paid $1M to educate adults against ABORTION…but CAIN. CAIN is also not going to be caught in CHEAP TRICK questions. YOU OWE HIM one big apology. MAYBE you can still run for SENATE somewhere in PA but you are petty, poutty and small.
Report Post »Applehead
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 8:17amRANGERP, You nailed it! They have to think of extreme examples that are rare to sell their evil agenda to the gullible public!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 8:38amLet’s all take a deep breath here and relax. This is no reason to condemn either Santorum or Cain. Rick is doing what his job is as a candidate and one with a special focus on the moral issues. He is pointing out weaknesses in the others’ positions. That is a necessary thing for all of us. He is right that Cain’s arguments in certain instances are essentially pro-choice on their face. Where he is wrong is in saying that those arguments accurately reflect Cain’s position.
Examning Cain’s positions and statements, even in the clips on the other Blaze thread, I can confidently conclude that Cain is nearly as pro-life as Santorum, but he is very unskilled in making his arguments. The piece on Stossel’s show was painful to watch. Cain thought he was being clear while it was clear to both the other people on the show, and to me who has been pro-life since I was a 16 year old atheist brat, that Cain‘s statement’s were contradicting each other unless they were clarified, something he simply wouldn’t do. He didn’t see the contradictions of his statements. I know how that can happen. We can often have interior contexts for certain statements so that WE know what we mean by it, but unless we make those contexts clear our meaning won’t be the one receieved. We have to react and adjust by saying, “what I mean by that is…”. Cain wouldn’t do that. He needs to learn how to use arguments that are clear to his audience, not just to himself.
Report Post »JJ Coolay
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 8:56amRanger is right on this.
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:07amIsel of Jordan . . . You say, “Cain is nearly as pro-life as Santorum”
I’m not sure that really means anything. It’s like saying, “Cain is nearly as gay as Santorum.” You either are or you are’t pro life.
Report Post »JRook
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:15amThe matter was decided by the Supreme Court a long time ago and it is the best and most intrusive decision we should want from the government into personal liberties and representation of all religious beliefs in public policy. Time to move on and ignore this issue in terms of electing an individual to office.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:17am“You either are or you are’t pro life.”
That’s idiocy, and every pro-life organization knows it. that’s why they give grades for the pro-life status of politicians. It isn’t a pass-fail.
Requiring a 100% agreement is the path of extremists and losers. It is the metality of people who call others unChristian because they use the wrong Bible or don’t agree on every biblical interpretation that you do. It’s like those people, and there actually ARE some, who say the Pope isn’t catholic enough.
Report Post »deona
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:50amIs abortion murder or not that is the question?Of course it is if you believe life begins at conception,therefore it must be protected by the law as all human life is.
Report Post »gwbfam
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:08pmI don’t think Cain was for abortion, he was just trying to bring across the point that the government has no buisness being involved in peoples lifes in the first place. I do not believe he is pro-abortion at all. He is a christian and I believe that a true christian can not be for abortion. I take him at his word. He does need to be more careful how he says things though. We know that the left is going to do everything they can to trip him up. They are godless!!!
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 2:46pm@VEHO
I’m a libertarian. I want small government. But small government is not the same as no government. Protecting it‘s citizens from murder is DEFINITELY one of the government’s roles.
I believe that life starts at conception. (I believe any reasonable person would concede this and the only reason they “pretend” otherwise is because of abortion rights.) So for me, you’re clearly killing a child.
What if the mother’s health is in jeopardy…. this is a special cases and any laws need to take these into account.
What about for rape? Incest? What if tests show the baby has serious issues? What if tests show it has down’s syndrome, etc? I’m not going to pretend to know the right answers here.
But I believe getting an abortion simply because you don’t want the baby is utter depravity and I think it should be illegal.
Report Post »Abysmal
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 5:54pm@Okie
@DrFrost
The referred to role of government is not to protect life – it is to protect [human] life from the non-consensual threat of force from others. This distinction is important, as a simple directive of protecting life provides for governmental responsibility in providing life’s necessities (such as public health care and healthy food for all) and in prohibiting “unhealthy” private behaviors (such as no smoking even in your home).
With this in mind, the relevant question would seem to be, “at what point during an embryo‘s or fetus’s development does it become a separate life?” If one believes an embryo is a separate life at fertilization, then an argument for criminalizing all abortion is reasonable. If one believes a fetus is not a separate life until it is viable (capable of living independently outside the womb and absent significant on-going medical support), then it would no longer be the role of government to prevent an abortion up to that point, as it is not the role of government to infringe upon one’s private actions.
Having a true understanding of when a distinct and separate life begins is obviously highly complicated, and I respect both sides of this issue. Calling people “ignorant” for having a different viewpoint is unnecessary and designed to shut down debate. Reasonable people are going to have wildly different opinions on this very emotional issue.
Interestingly, many of these issues will also have to be explored regardin
Report Post »Abysmal
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 6:01pmInterestingly, many of these issues will also have to be re-explored in-depth as artificial intelligence becomes more and more developed. Mankind will need to have a definition more complex than “life at conception” in order to address it.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 7:12pmAbysmal,
I can see no way in which your potential definition of separate life as constituting the ability to survive outrside the womb would not also be able to apply to newborns, who also cannot survive on their own outside the womb. They must be fed and clothed. You may respond that that is not what you meant by survival and yet any other category seems both elastic and dependent upon levels of medical technology rather than in anything inherent in the unborn child.
The simplest definition of “separate life” is a biological one. Does it possess its own DNA structure?
Arguing over survivability only makes sense if you propose to allow/mandate doctors to remove the child from the womb if the mother no longer wants it. But any doctor will tell you that surviving outside the womb is less likely than inside, which means that you will decide to threaten a “viable” life. This seems ridiculous. If it’s potential viability means that it is a life worth defending then such defense would mandate that it stay in the womb to ensure its safety. Catch 22
Report Post »Perkins
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 7:20pm@Abysmal,
“The referred to role of government is not to protect life – it is to protect [human] life from the non-consensual threat of force from others.”
Which government does by initiating the use of force against those who have done it no wrong (e.g. taxes, regulation, etc). Sounds to me like this idea of government of yours is rather self contradictory. Government is a coercive monopoly on force, which by definition means they do not protect anyone’s life, but rather their own place in the “market” with force. Unless “we the people” start protecting people’s lives (and by necessary extension, property, and free will) from the government, no one will ever be safe.
Report Post »Don’t misunderstand, I am not arguing in favor of abortion, only against the government. I believe a freewill choice to create another human grants to that new creation free will which must then be protected. But the government does not (nor will it ever) have any interest in protecting anyone’s free will. The solution is not to use government as a weapon, it is to make a more moral people, live by and convey the idea of value for value, and love one another as one’s self. Only this idea will save the country and stop the madness. Only love, not force can fix the problem.
Okie from Muskogee
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 7:29pm@Abysmal
Sperm + Egg = Life It cannot be any clearer or simple then that.
Government‘s role is to protect that Life from being taken just as it is Government’s job to protect your life from being taken. Government is to ensure you life, not how you live such life.
Islesfordian’s post clears up the rest. Good job IsLesFordian.
Report Post »arnoler
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 8:50pmHow profoundly refreshing! Finally, a politician who understands the distinction between personal convictions and governmental authority. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent with a person believing to the core of his being that abortion is wrong and that life begins at conception while at the same time believing that the government does not have the authority to enforce an identical belief system on every American. More than anything else I can think of, this reveals the profound uniquenes and “statesman-worthy” wisdom of Mr. Cain. No matter how deeply one feels about a social issue, the entire foundation of America is based on the premise that every American has the right to decide social issues for oneself. Yes, eliminate/prohibit financial support for abortions by the governmental (because that would mean those of us who are pro-life would be forced to fund abortions. But, the government has NO RIGHT to disallow the personal decision of others to believe that life is not a biological event ( conception) but rather an experiential event (birth). BOTH are legitimate beliefs. Each believer should be allow to behave appropriately within their belief systems.
Report Post »Okie from Muskogee
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 9:41pm@Arnoler
You are wrong. If Government has no role in protecting life someone could kill you and government would have no say. Life is not a social issue. Life is a gift from God and as God fearing people we are to protect all life, including yours. If life is simply a “social” issue that we decide we could decide you cannot support yourself and might as well die or your family cannot decide to kill you in honor for doing something wrong determining you don’t deserve life. Your argument is invalid and exactly opposite of our founders. In fact your argument aligns with Progressive Eugenics……
Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness.
Wake up!
Report Post »Mohammed Is A Lie
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:43pmI am 100% pro-life and I believe that the govt should stay out of my business!
Report Post »jzs
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 11:28pmI’m not taking posistions here honestly, but the “life begins at conception” position has a problem. Hormonal birth control prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterine wall. So if life begins at conception, then a woman on the pill would be having chemically induced abortions. She would have prevented a “living” viable human from becoming a baby.
So that would mean no more birth control pills.
Report Post »David
Posted on October 22, 2011 at 9:31amYour comment makes no sense. Republicans are nor Libertarians. In the Rebupilican platform they are politically pro-life. As Santorum is talking about, people like Kerry And Obama speak about being “personally pro-life,” or as for them, they would not make that choice. So, it’s not as if the “Pro-Life” stance by Rebublicans means that Rebublicans don’t believe in people having abortions, and Democrats do! The issue has to do with GOVERNMENT FORCE, plain and simple. So, you ask, why in the world would Republicans who are normally on the side of “less government,“ and the dems or liberals on the side of ”more,”: in this particular case be on the side of governmnet intrusion? It‘s because they it’s consitent with murder/ For as much as Rebublicans want the government to stay out of their lives, they do not want to remove the murder laws. So, if they see Abortian as literally murder, the unborn being 100% human, and having full constitutional rights, so it’s no longer only about the rights of the mother, then government can act in force. LIMITED GOVERNMENT can be involved in the case of MURDER. So, please, stop with the closet liberal argument that this means Rebublicans are abandoning their less government philosophy because they want government to protect the innocent from being murdered with force if this is 100% the case of what will happen to the child. If not, no government intrusion, I agree.
Report Post »dissentnow
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:33pmMr. Santorum is desperate. He is also playing to his very, very, very small base.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:38pmPro Choice=Pro Life+Pro Christ
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:43pmWell, he may be on something here. Pizza man will serve any topping the donors ask. He is like Romney – both “businessmen” with no clue about economy.
Official news. When donors were classified into groups
Report Post »The top three group donors to Ron Paul are 1) US Air force; 2) Navy; 3) Army.
The top three group donors to Romney are …. banks.
Cain – he just lent his own money (from the FED) to his own campaign.
Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:48pmPro-life isn’t a small base in the Republican party. I still like Cain, but he needs to get his act together here. This is a bedrock Republican party platform plank. It is the core of the social conservative movement, much more so than the institution of marriage.
Report Post »Nlitend1
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:51pmIt’s an important point he is making. This is the single most important issue for the right, and he just exposed Cain as a pro-choice candidate. There is no coming back from that and Santorum may not win, but he sure made sure that Cain doesn’t win either. This would have eventually come out…consider this an early warning, you can now argue about which of the other candidates is least bad.
Report Post »Zorro6821
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:59pmRick baby, get off the religion crap. you sound like so 90′s. Nobody cares about your religion…just leave your done. Paul for 2012…
ltb
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:03pmWhenever a Republican attacks another Republican, I immediately lose respect for him/her. Herman Cain has been doing a good job of staying out of the mud slinging and that’s one of the reasons I like him more each day.
Report Post »blue_sky
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:12pmI got email that some of Cain staff secretly donated to Ron Paul campaign.
Report Post »His money bomb at RonPaul2012 is now close to $2,239,000.00 – all in less than 18 hours.
dissentnow
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:41pmA large part of the base? Is that why Mr. Santorum is hovering around the 1% mark?
Report Post »Ronko
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:44pmI have no problem with what Cain said and this is basically Santoroum firing a Nuke.
Report Post »escape_from_socialism
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:47pmHerman is like my doormat. When winds from left to right, I will find my doormat on right side on the porch, when from right, I will find on left.
Stupid doormat, extremely sensitive to winds. I’m thinking to nail it.
Herman talks a lot about future of his grand kids. Wonder why he is not too worry about the debt, his grand kids already owe, roughly 47,000. thanks to FED and stupid federal govt.
Report Post »whywonder
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:48pmMr Cain could get alot of the independent and moderate republican votes with a pro choice plank. Abortion is the law of the land for nearly 40 years, its settled law and will not be overturned..its a privacy issue between a woman and a doctor yet you prolifers insist on inserting your self into the doctor patient relationship. Best to work on reducing unwanted pregnancies through adoption and proper sex ed. Abstinence pledges won’t work either
Report Post »escape_from_socialism
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:55pmI don’t like Herman, but this issue is not black and white.
Report Post »I have live in country with strict anti-abortion law.
The law didn’t stop abortions at all.
It just put lots of people in prisons.
Procedures went from clean doctor offices to dirty basements.
I have no answer to that issue. I don’t know what is better. I’m against abortion my self. I’m just not sure banning it by law is the best answer.
trickball
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:03pmIt is typical of Rick Santorum. He has a history of trying to attack opponents using liberal arguments. When he attacked Mr. Cain’s 999 plan he used opinions from a liberal think tank that would criticize any Republican Tax structure. It was very clear to me that Mr. Cain understands that abortions is legal and while HE would not chose, support, or condone a women for having an abortion. Additionally, in the case of rape or incest it is up to the family as to whether they chose to have an abortion because having an abortion is legal in the United States of America. Rick Santorum is trying to get some attention focused on him but most people understand the methods for which Sen. Santorum uses to attack his opponents.
Report Post »imreddog
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:16pmI am a Ron Paul supporter and have thought that Cain would be my second choice… thinking that I could support Cain if it bacame apparent that Ron Paul was out of the race. BUT, Cain is having way too many “misunderstood” moments. These mis-statements or mis-understandings are beginning to be far too frequent. I am not out of Cain’s corner yet, but I am beginning to think that he will require a deeper study and consideration. There are two people that I will not vote for, period!…. Perry and Romney. I consider them to be no better than Obama. No Romnobama Care for me. Perry & his forced innoculation of young ladies is too much government interference for me. ALSO, just yesterday, here in San Antonio there are people on the street corners taking a survey in their efforts to have TOLL ROADS. Perry has been a huge supporter of Toll Roads in Texas that would be owned by foreign entities…. I suspect that he is still involved in this. I haven’t seen Perry do anything to put an end to the Toll Road crap. Nope, no Perry for me.
Report Post »The10thAmendment
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:20pm@ blue_sky
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:43pm
Well, he may be on something here. Pizza man will serve any topping the donors ask.
Report Post »——————————————————————————————————————————————-
OR, he will express the dictates of the limitations set by the US Constitution against government interfering over the mind of man and allow the decisions on abortion to be taken up by the several states
blue_sky
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:27pmIs Cain the same as Perry & Romney? You decide!
Report Post »http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7RaYbToq7Q
Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:35pm10thamendment,
If Cain is taking a principled federalist argument he needs to clearly make it and not have his supporters ASSUME that is what he means when his words indicate something else. Taking about abortion being a personal matter or one left to the familiy has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with a States’ rights argument. It seems rather to invalidate even the right of the states to rule on this issue. That is the a solid pro-choice position.
I am willing to give Cain the benefit of the doubt here and accept that he is taking a 10th amendment stand here. But he needs to learn, and fast, how to answer this question better, OR he needs to stop answering it so badly. He has a bad habit of answering off the cuff to every question. He needs to stop that or learn how to think on his feet better.
The silent man is thought wise while the foolish man speaks and removes all doubt.
Report Post »Nlitend1
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:53pmI love you @10thamendment, but I can’t tell if you are an R or D? Maybe that is why I appreciate your comments. The irony is, all the defenses I have read for Cain and his pro-life/pro-choice dialogue apply equally to Obama, Kerry, etc. They have all said “I am pro-life in my own life, don’t want government deciding this.”
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:53pmCain Proves A Person Can Be Pro-Life But Still Have An Abortion Or Support Abortion.
Its all a matter of the wind direction and who you are talk too. There are a lot of things supporters do not know about Cain just like Obama. Cain is a GOP RINO Obama so lets all pay homage to him.
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:56pmWe Had A McCain Who Showed The GOP The Road To Surrender.
Maybe now we have a Cain who will take us down the road to surrender. If its a decision of death or chains I will choose death. Give me liberty or give me death.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:06pmI agree 100% with Santorum and ISLES on this one. As a Christian you either STAND FOR TRUTH or refrain from calling yourself a believer. When Morgan challenged Cain’s stance on rape by personalizing the issue, Cain’s response was to deflect the question by talking about the role of govt. The fact that he favored a “laissez faire” attitude only added to the confusion.
Obviously Morgan wanted to paint him into a corner, but if Cain did not wish to discuss his family, he should have told Morgan in no uncertain terms that his family was off limits, period. Instead, Cain made sure everybody knew he did not intend to challenge Roe vs. Wade, because abortion was not something he as president would meddle in. If that was not typical liberal side-stepping I don’t know what is – and very much a la Obama.
Now that Cain realizes it was a huge political blunder, he backpedals (again?). Does Cain hold strong Christian values, or is his campaign about catering to the PC crowd? The one character trait I thought separated Cain from all those other fossilized candidates was his willingness to be straightforward (without shooting himself in the foot like Perry). If he turns out to be just another power-hungry politician, I might as well go with Romney. After all, Romney stands the best chance of defeating the commie traitor.
Report Post »USAMama
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:19pmI understand what he is saying as this: He is pro-life, period. However, the law as it stands is that abortion is legal and he does not have the authority as POTUS to override that law (unlike our current POTUS who just does whatever he wants through EO). So he is answering the question from that view point, as long as it is legal he can not tell someone what they can or can’t do. That is still their decision.
Many libertarians are actually pro choice in the sense that they think the government shouldn’t have any say in what people do with their own bodies. They may think its morally wrong but do not think its the governments job to get involved one way or another. I am pro life 100% and this is one area I differ from staunch libertarians. But the law is what it is, and unless it changes people, unfortunately, still have that choice.
Report Post »Amazona
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:20pmlike Glenn has said, these people will always let you down at the end someway, I had respect for Santorum up until the last debate, he seems like a solid family man but has issues with making a point without looking weak or small. This shot at Herman Cain not being pro-life makes him look weaker, let the people decide, don’t use it to attack. To me Herman Cain is clearly pro-life and he has put his money & time where his heart is. http://www.lifenews.com/2006/10/18/nat-2668/
Report Post »On the last debate Santorum accused Herman Cain of forgeting the poor on his plan, which told me that he has not even read the information on the Herman Cain website to be able to debate it with facts, so he is just attacking to see if something sticks and he gains.
kryptonite
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:20pmUSAMama
They may think its morally wrong but do not think its the governments job to get involved one way or another.
————–
That is why Paulist libertarianism is so dangerous. We are in our current helpless state, unable to help the approximately 4,000 unborn babies who are being murdered per day in America, because we allowed liberals to strip America of its moral fiber. How come they are able to lawfully pass their infanticide laws, and we don’t get to fight back?
Relevant words:
Report Post »==> “Therefore hear this, you who are afflicted, who are drunk, but not with wine: Thus says your Lord, the LORD, your God who pleads the cause of his people: “Behold, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering; the bowl of my wrath you shall drink no more; and I will put it into the hand of your tormentors, who have said to you, ‘Bow down, that we may pass over’; and you have made your back like the ground and like the street for them to pass over.” (Isaiah 51: 21-23)
Vince Vega
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:25pm@DISSENTNOW I agree….unfortunately, by making remarks like that, Rick Santorum is coming across as very desperate, imo. He’s got a long ways to go, and a short time to get there, but I think his attack on Cain is WAY off base. I honestly don’t know how Cain could make his position any clearer, but obviously some people will disagree with me…..we’ll see how it all shakes out.
Report Post »oneshiner
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:55pmI’m against abortions, but mostly against it if I have to participate by helping pay for them. This is a decision that should be made by the woman, if she wants to pay for her own abortion. I want no part of it. However, incest or rape would be different in my opinion. Who wants a child under those conditions?
Report Post »thepatriotdave
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:22am“I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation.”
Report Post »======================================================
Bingo! When was the last time a politician said something like this? Herman understands the relationship the President is supposed to have as the leader of this country. He needs to teach Obama a thing or two. He could start by telling Obama that being president does NOT mean you get to DICTATE to the citizens.
Jeff65
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:48am@ONESHINER
Report Post »Nobody wants a child under those conditions, but many will accept a child under those conditions. You are naive to think that people like that don’t exist. There are real life people that have been willing to talk about their experience so people like you would understand. google it.
colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:02amWatch Cain flip flop and change positions again like he did regarding TARP, bank bailouts, raising the debt ceiling, housing bubble, 2008 recession, Al-Alawki assasination, Federal Reserve audit and foreign policy. Lots of Cain’s new followers also supported Perry before, and before Perry, they supported Romney. All these candidates change depending on the audience or topic of the day.
Report Post »your sensei
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:21amIsis of Jordan . . . you say you still like Cain but “he needs to get his act together here”
Why so quick to give him a pass? “get his act together” is nothing more than “he needs to start saying things the way we want to hear them” rather than him actually holding and testifying to pro life beliefs.
Report Post »amsmith41974
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:30amI support Cains beliefs. The governments role should be a hands off one. If the family and by extension the church hadn’t been destroyed this would be a non-issue. You should have the right to a pro-abortion stance, but should also recognize the moral and spiritual implications that accompany that choice. That recognition would lead to a responsible decision (pro-life) to accept the consequences for personal actions. That rape or incest is such a small fraction of a percent makes it a moot point. Santorum really is clawing to gain any traction and ultimately he is pushing people away.
Report Post »LUCIDANDBLACK
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:33pm(repost from a similar topic)
Herman’s position seems to be we have to change people’s hearts, not the law. It’s the same position that Dr. Laura Schlessinger has posited over years, the same position Dr. Ron Paul suggested a few weeks ago in a debate. For those that an absolute position one way or the other, I suggest a reading of Genesis 18:16-33 might provide the necessary wisdom, the wisdom of Abraham. If there were exclusions for rape, incest, and therapeutic abortions, would that be an improvement over the current situation, barring the innocent men that would be falsely charged of rape and incest?
You see, there are no easy answers here so why are so many expecting an easy answer from Mr. Cain?
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:45pmWe’re not expecting an easy answer. We ARE expecting a thought out POLITICAL answer. He isn’t running for chief minister. he is running for President, the top political office. And abortion is a political issue. Changing hearts and minds is necessary, but you ignore the fact that one hoitorical way of changing minds is through the political process. Bringing bills up for public debate is one of the surest ways to get an issue talked about. That’s how slavery was abolished in England.
Report Post »We are Americans
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:27pm@islesfordian. This is where I see the problem.
Report Post »First off. Praise Jesus.. Obviously life begins
at conception. Who can dispute that? The problem
is when dealing with the government is it their
right to stop people from doing things to their
own bodies. We all want less government but we also
want the government the right to decide if an
18 yr old rape victim has to have a rapists baby.
My thought is life is life but it is a difficult position
to those who want less government intrusion.
That being said , abortion on demand and our baby
killing culture deeply saddens me. As does the
lack of morality that has become the norm in
our society. God bless and be well.
cwillisw
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:59pmI agree with Herman. If you want to terminate the life of your child that is your business. Don’t expect me to want to pay for it. Taxpayer money should not be used for abortion, government has no role in this. End of sentance.
SOLUTION: The founding fathers left some principals for Americans. The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are on top of the list. The right to LIFE is the not supported by abortion. A constitutional ammendment defining the legal begining of life may be needed. Ending any life should come under the statutes listed under “Thou Shalt Not Kill”.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:21pmWe are Americans,
You start off by acknowledgeing that life begins at conception. Maybe you really aren’t aware that many pro-choicers debate that point prefering to be agnostic about when life begins. Philosophically imbecillic, but whatever.
But the rest of your peice that follows seems not to acknowledge the worth of that life in the womb at all. It’s all about the mother, her body etc. What about the child.
That is the legitimate question that Santorum has raised. Does this life, begun at conception, deserve any protection from the State? Both you and Cain skip over that question. Who cares when you think life begins or what you think of abortion if you don’t think that your opinions should have any consequence in law?
Don’t say this a a matter between a woman and God, because God has already said how much he detests this and our political system doesn’t ask his opinion anyways. Nor is this just a question between a woman and her doctor (There is really no doctor involved, only a hired assasin in medical garb. A doctor is supposed to first do no harm, but the abortion culture has corrupted the profession). There is also the baby, who is the only one permanently and terminally affected by the action. His interest should be paramount, and as he is the weakest individual the State has the obligation to speak for him. If the State doesn’t protect the weak against the strong, what good is it?
Report Post »GodWillPrevail
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:42pmHerman Cain is new on the Big Stage. In 40 years I have seen no one handle it as well as he has. Please give him a break.
This was a minor flub. He corrected it quickly and in total it was a very Piers created misunderstanding blown all out of proportion.
Herman needs more practice communicating to the Press. I totally agree. But he hardly wavers. He is rock solid in his views just too cerebral at times after all he literally was a Rocket Scientist.
Study him. He is a black minister loved by his fellow parishioners with solid conservative views. Now his Antioch Baptist church is very liberal. But he really has their support. Now seems to me that is really what America needs. Someone that can help America by communicating to the very liberal. He if elected will be the first truly religious President in a very long time.
Clarance Thomas is his hero. Can’t have him for President but Cain should be close.
Report Post »Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:19pmDon’t know about Dr. Laura, but all these Paulistas on here who are criticizing Cain just doesn’t make sense to me- he has pretty much the same stance on this as Herman Cain, as far as I can tell! Geeze, just shows how irrational they are- attack anybody who isn’t Ron Paul. I wish they’d just admit it.
Cain 2012. Ron Paul…not electable.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:25pmGodwillprevail,
My problem is that in the thirty plus years I have been listening to politicians and others talk about this issue I have heard LOTS do it better than Cain did here. Granted, most of them are Catholic and schooled in really sound ethical thinking, like Santorum, but I expect even a novice who has been alive for the last thirty years to know better than to talk about a decision being left to the family when it comes to abortion. That is the default pro-choice position so it concerns me a little that he didn’t seem to have that inner instinct that knew he was using pro-choice rhetoric that undercut a pro-life argument.
He has a very bad habit of not knowing when he is not being clear and needs to adjust his points to make them clearer. He often just repeats himself when somone asks for greater clarity, as if what he said was clear enough. One should NEVER assume that, especially a politician.
Actually, what Santorum is doing is a service to him, if he can learn from it. It will help him to see how he needs to be more clear than he is accustomed to be on the details of this issue. And he should learn to use the good arguments of others to support his position. In the defense of Truth all arguments are fair game. There is no copyright on a good argument. One doesn’t expect a soldier to invent his own rifle.
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:39pm@Islesfordian..He needs to think and answer these questions better.. Maybe he needs a teleprompter..
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:47pm@oneshiner… WOW ! You’re a conservative, or ?
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:15am@Supercalafragalisticexpialidotious Is Satorum a Paulista also? Are Paul and Cain about the same? I kindly beg to defer.
“And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
Because he agrees with Thomas Jefferson that it is “sinful and tyrannical” to “compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors,” Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program… stand up for every American’s right to life.” http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/
Cain on the issue, on his website? As of now, nothing.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 8:17am“Maybe he needs a teleprompter”
No, Demint Disciple, what I think he needs is a debate partner, someone to spar with him and point out the weaknesses in his arguments. Iron sharpens iron, and I have constantly found that I improve my ability to present certain ideas by merely working them out with someone else. Sherlock Holmes said the same about Watson. Finding an explanation that works well often can’t be done until you have tested and rejected poorer explanations, and those can only be tried and found wanting in actual practice.
Cain has to learn that he needs to constantly perfect his ability to explain and defend his positions. It’s frustrating when I can see better explanations of his tax policy than he is presenting. Doubling down on a defense that isn’t working may show confidence, but it doesn’t show wisdom. He has a habbit of resting in his plain spokeness and assuming that things are clear, even when they aren’t. He needs the humility to see that what he sees clearly he may not be communicating clearly. Debating with a determined yet friendly partner would help him overcome that flaw.
Report Post »eyestoseeearstohear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:32pmIF Rick Santorium and the others DON’T STOP ATTACKING EACH OTHER…
THEY ARE ALL GOING TO END UP “ IN A SANATORIUM”
PLEASE Republican Candidates, turn you attention onto OBAMA & YOUR AGENDA.
Report Post »JEANNIEMAC
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:32pmAbortion is the murder of a child. It is not anyone’s right to decide to end that life. Only God has that right.
Report Post »Countrygirl1362
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:39pmAnyone that thinks different really needs to watch this movie. http://www.180movie.com/
Report Post »standupbcounted
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:33pmI agree . If put to a vote now in this country, I think Roe vs Wade would be overturned by the people. More people now think of it as what it is murder of an innocent baby.I know lots of people who in the 80′s were pro-choice who are pro-life now and I can’t believe I was one of them.
Report Post »Ordie69
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:30pmYes and I suppose with that stance everyone here is also against the death penalty and wars, because who are we to take a life for any reason.
Report Post »johnconnersmom5
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:26pmThank you for the link to that movie, 180. It moved me to tears. I’m already pro-life, but wow.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:21am@Ordie69 The matter addresses an INNOCENT child, not a GUILTY person convicted and sentenced under Justice. The child holds no threat or assault towards anyone. Nice try.
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 9:03am@GodWillPrevail.. Yes he is so much better than Reagan was … Pppffft !!!
Report Post »CCRYDER
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:28pmStick a fork in Santorum – he’s done! Same for Perry…time to go away.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:33pmAgreed .. they need to go away so that we can concentrate on finding a REAL candidate …
Report Post »encinom
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:40pmDon’t forget to stick a fork in Cain to, it is clear he is flip flopping lie a fish on a dock. His response is that if the crowd is against abortion than he is against, unless it is within his own family than they have the right to choose.
Report Post »IndyNWguy
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:45pmI see Encinom is battling for the “Troll of the Day” award. You’re in a stiff competition En. It looks like your buddy Swift Justice is in first place for now. Perhaps you can respond to this post in your usual manner in hopes of defending your title?
As for Cain’s position… The abortion issue is a loser for the right. Its a stupid issue. I think Cain is right about winning hearts instead of writing laws. Lead by example. People will follow, and those who don’t are irrelevant.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:27amCain should have explained himself better. He digged himself in a hole. And yes, Perry should step out now. Nice try on the Media on trying to manipulate who the frontrunners are. Let’s see, “Perry this, Perry that, Perry, Perry, Perry” and sham wam he’s got 27-32% of the vote, thanks to the Media. Then the voters see how incompetent and unclear he truly is in debates and he drops to 8-14%. First it was Romney, then Perry, now its… maybe Cain? Just a thought.
Report Post »eyestoseeearstohear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:27pmJUST ASKIN’….
WHY is it, ABORTION IS NO PROBLEM FOR POLITICIANS ….UNTIL ELECTION TIME?
And, AFTER Elections – they don’t stand up and ARGUE AGAINST IT?
Just askin’….
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:31pmFor true pro-life politicians it is an issue all the time. Those who only talk about it at elections aren’t the real deal. Santorum is a true pro-lifer. He stands by his belief 100% and all the time.
Report Post »scrupulous
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:37pmSantorum may be a “true pro-lifer”, and that’s his choice, but his choice does NOT HAVE TO BE MY CHOICE! Government does not belong in that personal decision that one must make between their lives and their God. Government belongs at the borders, not in our lives! Cain’s “opinion” is exactly my opinion, but that doesn’t mean I want to remove that right for another women, who just may not share my opinion.
Report Post »geonj
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:27pmsantorum is desparate.
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:57pmTook alot to come up with that , huh ?
Report Post »Bumr50
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:24pmI think that the onslaught on Herman Cain needs to stop.
He’s 100% pro-life, but will not OVERRIDE his powers as President to issue a blanket ban, which would be unconstitutional, leaving that up to the states.
He shouldn’t have to say that AGAIN – and Rick Santorum needs to STFU because the unapologetic “family-values, social conservative” is using it as a bludgeon.
All you 10th Amendment fans should love this.
Unless you only like it when it suits you…
Report Post »CatB
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:32pmI agree .. they need to stop trying to “eat each other” and go after the real problem >>>> OBAMA! Santorum just took himself out as far as I am concerned .. as did Perry with his personal attacks … This is way to important to be about one person wanting something so badly that they will destroy the future of our country .. we MUST defeat Obama Nov. 2012!
TEA!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:36pm“He’s 100% pro-life, but will not OVERRIDE his powers as President to issue a blanket ban, which would be unconstitutional, leaving that up to the states.”
Is that how he has explained it, or are you putting words in his mouth? If that is his position then he most definitely has to state it AGAIN. Once is NEVER enough in political campaigns. He didn’t mention his 999 plan only once, did he? Given his incoherent responce on these three occasions to articulate a strong pro-life political position then he had better do better than “End of story” if he doesn’t want social conservatives to be confused about him.
Report Post »Vince Vega
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:52pmWell put BUMR….you nailed it!
Report Post »Twins Dad in NH
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:09am@ ISLESFORDIAN
where would this opinion come from how about Cains own words in response to the Susan B Anthony List the last cain story the Blaze posted S***ED they cut out a very important part of his quote to lifenews.com here is the full text what do you think?:
“I support right-to-life issues unequivocally and I adamantly support the first three aspects of the Susan B. Anthony pledge involving appointing pro-life judges, choosing pro-life cabinet members, and ending taxpayer-funded abortions,” Cain said in a statement. “However, the fourth requirement demands that I ‘advance’ the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation”
Sounds to me like a pro ife pro Constitution rule of law stance. The oath of office is to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION and this sounds EXACTLY like what Mr. Cain is stating he will do!
to see the story for yourself
Report Post »http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/18/herman-cain-reaffirms-pro-life-view-after-not-siging-pledge/
PATRIOTGRUNT
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:24pmHey Rick . I am pro life. I believe in the sanctity of life. That is my belief. Having said that just what would you want me to do if my neighbors doughter decided to have an abortion. What, shoot her force her to have the baby.The fact is wether I like it or not remember ROW vs Wade. I choose to mind my own business as I learned long time ago that I can’t control anyones actions but my own. I also know that I will answer to God only for my sins not yours. I do draw the line on LATE TERM ABORTIONS I consider that murder. Abortions s–k. I am not condoning any thing .I just can;t do a damn thing about it.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:12pm@Partriot – you are not pro-life
If your neighbor is going to kill his 10 yr old daughter, do you mind your own business?
If the fetus is a human life and protected by the constitution, there is no room for choice.
There is no exception for rape or incest. You cannot murder someone period.
If you would stand by and watch someone be murdered you are not pro-life.
Report Post »paperpushermj
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:23pmMr Santorum
Report Post »You will not be the Republican Nominee for President of The United States. By staying in the race for that honor, you find yourself attacking and there by damaging those that might become the Champion of your Party. Stop hurting and See the Writing on The Wall, leave the contest with your honor intact before it’s to late.
338lapua
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:34pmI disagree, I think all those who will not win have a responsibility to shape the debate. Gingrich is holding up his end……..Ron Paul is holding up his end…… The rest of them are shooting US in the foot with their attacks on their/our own. If he cannot direct his angst towards the president and the democrats, then he needs to go. Rick is a DECENT conservative individual. I am not sure why he hasn’t gone further in this race. But he does bring a lot to the discussion.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:48pmI‘m trying to understand why we don’t like Santorum. I don’t know all that much about him but I seem to agree with him on everything I have learned so far. Someone help me out here. I’m not for or against him like I am some of the others. I was against Perry from Day 1. Romney is a RINO and just too polished but he would surely do a better job than Obama if he, in fact, becomes the GOP nominee. Huntsman is Perry without the name recognition. Newt is smart and would do a good job but his personal life leaves his decision-making skills at question. Cain, who I have liked so far, seems to be coming apart at the seams. I agree with Bachmann on so many issues but just can’t see her winning the nomination. I thought Santorum made an excellent point about carrying Pennsylvania and I like his conservative and libertarian-leaning views. What am I missing about him?
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:50pmSorry….meant Huntman is Romney without the name recognition.
Report Post »CCRYDER
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:23pmI am dissapointed in Rick Santorum‘s twisting of Herman Cain’s clear statement that he is pro-life but government does not belong in people’s personal lives. I’m sure if he could waive a “magic wand” he would overturn Roe v. Wade in a minute. The fact is abortion is legal and millions of little lives have been lost. It is important that government do what it can do – NOT give any federal funding to agencies that provide abortions.
Many women (especially young women) have no clue what happens when sperm meets egg – life begins in that INSTANT and what occurs from that moment on is nothing less than miraculous. The heart begins beating at 22 days after conception…most women don’t even know they are pregnant until two months or so. By that time life is in full progress and abortion kills that life. Often times when women are educated about what’s going on in their body they fully realized this is a life and will choose to carry to term and then give the child up for adoption or keep her baby. A much better choice for all concerned.
Santorum is not going anywhere – his performance at the debate this week was very poor. He appeared to be a whiney complaining little boy stamping his feet because he’s not getting his way!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:28pmWhat you describe as “pro-life” is the Mario Cuomo psoition. And it isn’t pro-life at all. It is pro-choice, as in, the choice should be up to the individual whether to kill the baby or not.
Cain has to do better than this. His position is truly incoherent as he is espousing it. Santorum is right to ask whether he believes that the life in the womb deserves to be protected by the State in any form. If not he should explain why not.
Report Post »TeaPartyPatriot
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:23pmIf moRon Paul wasn’t a complete hypocrite, his position (and that of ALL so-called libertarians) on abortion would be EXACTLY THE SAME as cain’s, which is to personally oppose it, but NOT have the government be the enforcer of his opinion.
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:27pmI would add that as soon as the Supreme Court establishes when a person becomes a person, then it’s murder at any point after that. Thus, personhood = conception makes all abortion at least justifiable homicide (e.g. saving the mothers life).
Report Post »eyestoseeearstohear
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:23pmThere goes Santorium again…
STOP FIGHTING BETWEEN THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES AND ARGUE
ABOUT WHAT OBAMA IS/HAS DONE TO THIS COUNTRY.
AND….ASK ABOUT HIS CITIZENSHIP AND HIS THOUGHTS ON ABORTION…
Report Post »THERE’S A STARTER FOR YA!
338lapua
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:28pmI second that!
Report Post »CARRY THAT MOTION!!!!!!!
Bluebonnet
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:50pmYes, stop the nasty remarks against your own party. The debate the other night just left me disgusted.
Report Post »I want the truth, yes, but the slanderous way of going about it makes me dislike them all.
Love Herman Cain and I also really like Ron Paul, if I can trust him to protect this Country when needed.
I’ve always thought Santorum was a well versed and knowledgeable, but I’m tired of his whiny attitude.
copatriots
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:17pmMostly all of them have been bashing each other. Newt (not that he is my top choice) has really been the only one who has seemed unifying among them and consistently focused his attacks on Obama. Did anyone see the video against Perry leaked then “mysteriously pulled” by the Romney camp? That seems a lot more worthy of our scorn than Santorum challenging a viable issue. Just sayin’.
Report Post »mad_hatter
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:22pmDid you see Krauthammer attack Santorum on his stance on Gay marriage… interesting. Here is the debate between the two: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/video/2011/oct/krauthammer_santorum_gay.html
Report Post »inblack
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:33pmHe did not attack Santorum. it was a good question and Santorum described his position well.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:02pmWhat Krauthammer doesn‘t understand is that marriage isn’t just a union between a man and a woman but how that union is fitted into human society, how it is supported and protected by society and how it in turn forms the foundation on which society is built. Destroy the concept of marriage in government and the ability of society to support marriage is destroyed, making marriages more vulnerable. But worse, it makes it impossible for society to be given cohesion from the institution of marriage. This in turn leads to greater power given to the state to support itself. Sever the state from marriage and you actually create greater tyranny.
Santorum knows what he is talking about and he talks about it well. Sadly, few people in our corrupt age want to listen.
Report Post »edmundburk
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 9:44pmGood for santurium! charles crauthammmer is a fox neo-con hack!! When he comments on a issue,
Report Post »you can count on him to give a leftist slant to it.
THX-1138
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:22pmDirt simple.
The GUTLESS supreme Court dodged this one when they ruled (incorrectly) on Roe v Wade. They refused to establish the legal point of becoming a Human Being.
Until the Supreme Court rules on the question of When Life Begins we will never have a solid law.
Period.
Morally it’s quite plain. Herman is exactly right. Life begins at conception AND I don’t want the State telling me a damn thing until the central question is settled in LAW.
Report Post »scrupulous
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:33pmI believe our President-to-be, if this country smarten’s up, can most definitely have an opinion without that opinion becoming law of the land. We ALL have opinions, and most of them differ, we ALL also want the same aspects of free government. And Cain and Paul are right. They have an opinion. That doesn‘t mean they wouldn’t fight for what WE THE PEOPLE want, whether it is their opinion or not. It‘s time that we stop caring what someone’s personal beliefs with their God or chosen one, are, and start worrying about how our next President will bring this country back from the dying. That matters more to me than what someone things of Woe vs. Wade. It’s a personal decision, not the government’s.
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:37pmKilling a Human Being is not a decision; it’s a killing.
Report Post »repomandan
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:18pmHe is clear to me. He is clearly stating he is against abortion. He is also stating what Rebublicans have been saying for years now……GET OUT OF OUR DAY TO DAY LIFE! Protect the boarders. Do the JOB your supposed to do. If a bill were to pass his desk with ProLife he’d shoot it down! How unclear is that. Gov is to big and controlls most of our life.
Report Post »repomandan
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:20pmCorrect againsts ProLife
Report Post »LiberalMarine
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:18pmLike I said before: Politically it should be left to the states to decide their abortion laws but I would want the states to allow it. If Santorum becomes president (hopefully never) I think he would try and control the states on subjects such as these.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:44amLet it be declared nationally (through statutes, policies, decisions and the sort that relate to and surround the matter) that abortions are unlawful, especially through the Supreme Court. Let the States enforce the illegality and pass the regulations, laws and criminal judgements concerning the matter. Understand that the federal Government does not have much Power to prosecute Citizens that commit abortions or to be policing the unlawful act of abortion within the several States. We do not need another national department or agency to govern our personal lives. As in other crimes, let the States sort out the details. That’s the best we could do to stay loyal to the federal Constitution and our moral obligations.
Report Post »TropicRanger
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:16pmAs a pro-lifer, I too do not believe in abortion. However, I think Pres. Cain took the right stance. It’s not for the govt to decide what the individual choice is. He’s just saying, don‘t expect help from the govt because you’ll get none, and that’s where the argument comes from. Should the govt pay for your murderous act? No.
Cain/Rubio 2012
Report Post »jens63
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:25pmI too thought Cain’s position very well stated. You can argue personal values with people until you are blue in the face, the bottom line is it comes down to the family involved and their personal decision. Government involvement will make little difference in the end.
Report Post »fatsomann
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:45pmHerman Cain is correct. That is between an individual and God and their doctor. If everyone’s heart was right with God there would be no debate regarding abortion. Government needs to stay out of it, morally and financially.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:55amWe did not make an appeal to the Great Legislature of the Universe when declaring our Freedom and Independence to decide for ourselves as individuals what is right or wrong but to accept the righteous precepts and perfect law of our Creator that we may be guided in our intentions and act accordingly as a Nation and People, wholly acceptable to God. To avoid a centralized and national all powerful Government, we the people have established a federal Union of several States each governed under a Constitutional Republic. Under this form of Government we have the best possibility to limit and restrain our State and federal Government and yet keep our moral obligations most beneficial to the good of society.
“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.” Exodus 19:5-8
“Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” P
Report Post »timel0rd
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:14pmAfter Santorum’s shameful performance in the last debate, he really needs to just go away.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:14pmDidn’t Cain make it clear (according to the last TWO stories on Herman) that he is pro-life?
Report Post »Trestin Meacham
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:25pmNot is he believes it is a matter of choice. You can’t be both! In fact, the idea that he believes life starts at conception but it’s up to the people to decide; is much worse than the standard pro-choice argument which revolves around the belief that life does not begin at conception. They at least seek to justify it by saying it’s not murder. Cain admits it’s murder, but says it’s up to the people. When you combine this with the leftist church he attends, he is starting to look a lot like BO on social issues.
Report Post »THX-1138
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:36pmMurder is a Legal term. It isn’t Murder until the State says it is. When they settle the question as to when life begins Legally then it can be Murder and not one day before.
We should demand that this question be settled once and for all.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:00pmThx 1138,
Your position stands on legal positivism. It isn‘t murder if the State doesn’t say it is. By that logic Hitler didn’t murder any Jews. They were “legally” exterminated.
It may be technically accurate, but it is philosophically and politically irrelevant. Law flows from morality, not the other way round. In our political system we have to argue what the moral position is, but once we decide it then it becomes the basis for our law. That’s a moral decision, not a legal one. The Supreme Court can’t decide that, nor should we wait for their opinion.
You are right that until the central question is decided legally that our political situation will be chaotic, but that is no reason to do nothing in the meantime. Evil will exist until Jesus comes back, but that is no excuse for our doing nothing against it until he returns.
Report Post »This_Individual
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:43pmTHX – I agree.
Report Post »Trestin – One’s personal beliefs on the (what I believe to be fact) issue of life beginning at conception, and the current legal reality that, it is a choice (although a bad one in my opinion) is not something I see as having it both ways. Isn’t Cain stating that although he does not believe that abortion is the way to go, but the fact that it is legal (unfortunately) he can do nothing about others’ choice to abort?
Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:27pm” Isn’t Cain stating that although he does not believe that abortion is the way to go, but the fact that it is legal (unfortunately) he can do nothing about others’ choice to abort?”
For someone running for President that is a stupid position to take. It is in the power of every politician and every citizen to work to CHANGE the law. It is irrelevant that he recognizes what the law currently IS. No one is asking him about that. We all assume he knows. They, and we, want to know what he would LIKE the law to be. And on that question he isn’t clear.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 3:59amStossel: If a woman is raped, she should not be allowed to end the pregnancy?
Cain: That’s HER CHOICE. That is not Government’s choice.
Obviously Cain contradicted himself.
Report Post »ONEUNDER
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:13pmIt is the work of GOD to make the judgement of the individual upon demise. Those that partake of abortion practices will take there decisions with them.
Report Post »demint.disciple
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 12:17am@This_Individual << Oh well obamacare care is law ,well I don't like it but I guess i'll have to live with it. It's law and what can I do about it now ? Are you for real ? If that was the case then what the hell anyone can be president…
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 4:03amWhen a mother with a child in her womb uses her money or mine, through Government funding and legalization, and pays another man, whose profession in a private or public building like a hospital is to protect and save lives, to performa violent and immoral service which ends the life of a child and sheds the blood of a live human in a very early stage of crucial development, that is absolutely not a decision just between her and God. That is a decision that if we, as the public, accept, condone or allow to proceed, we will reap its consequence under an inescapable judgement of God for accepting as a whole populace the individual evil act of one person to occur under our watch and governance. No doctor, Government, man or mother has the right to end the life of an innocent child in the womb. The mother does not own the body of that child though it be in her womb. Her choice was before she decided to take a risk in doing an act which might result in natural human reproduction. In cases of rape, the violator must be punished, not the women or child, as they are both faultless in the matter.
Report Post »sickoftalking
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:11pmWhat do I think? I think we should have conversations about whether restricting third trimester abortions is different than restricting first trimester abortions, and whether there should be things like parental notification rights. — Instead of these generic conversations about if “government shouldn’t be involved.” That’s a very simplistic response to a complicated set of policy issues.
So Cain should delineate his position on abortion policy more clearly, and we need to stop dumbing down the debate by reducing it to generic either/or propositions.
Report Post »takeOout
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:20pmI believe just like Cain. I personally don’t like abortions and I think they are deplorable, but it is not the governments job to tell anyone what to do with their life and it is none of your dam business either what a person decides to do with their life or that of their unborn child. That choice is between them and god.
Report Post »c.rozycki
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 8:01amThe government can’t restrict a person from aborting their baby? IT’S MURDER! At the moment of conception, life begins!!! It’s a proven fact by scientist all over. Abortion is murder.
Report Post »sickoftalking
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:08pmWhat do I think? I think we should have conversations about whether restricting third trimester abortions is different than restricting first trimester abortions, and whether there should be things parental notification rights. — Instead of these generic conversations about if “government shouldn’t be involved.” That’s a very simplistic response to a complicated set of policy issues.
So Cain should delineate his position on abortion policy more clearly, and we need to stop dumbing down the debate by reducing it to generic either/or propositions.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:05pmExactly. But such a conversation presumes that there are retrictions that the Government can make on abortion. Cain has to make clear that he accepts that fact. The pro-choice position is to deny that in principle and to fight against every instance of limitation.
Report Post »matt1776
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:36pmThe government can’t restrict abortion until the legal dispute is settled on when life starts. You can hope for a christian dictator who will make abortion illegal all you want, but we are a rule of law society as well as a Christian one, and until the law is settled resorting to a flat out government ban is being no better then your typical Democrat.
Cain’s position is we will never know when life starts, so leave it up to each person to decide that for themselves, and answer to God for their decisions. Sounds legit to most reasonable people.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:42pm“The government can’t restrict abortion until the legal dispute is settled on when life starts”
Nonsense. Flat out false. Even Cain recognizes that there are concrete steps that he can do as President to restrict abortion if Congress passes new laws. Abortion can be restricted in the s=2nd and third trimester. It can also be made more difficult by being regulated. What if abortioists were require to dispose of properly the human tissue like all hospitals must do instead of dumping it in trash cans? What if death certificates had to be produced and full reports on all procedures? There is so much that could be done to shine the light on this monstrous industry and make its life difficult. The government can make many legal activities, like smoking, very difficult if it wants to.
Report Post »sickoftalking
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 4:25pm“Cain’s position is we will never know when life starts, so leave it up to each person to decide that for themselves, and answer to God for their decisions. Sounds legit to most reasonable people.”
No its not, I’m sure he disagrees with killing a baby once its out of the womb. The question then becomes, why is it different killing the baby one week before it exits the womb, or one month before it exits the womb, or two months. The moment of birth is just as arbitrary a moment of when life starts as anything else is. When life begins also isn’t necessarily the relevant standard.
As a moderate, I think we should go back to the original guidelines from the Roe v Wade decision, which broke things down by trimesters … although I don’t with agree the decision as good Constitutional law … the guidelines were somewhat reasonable. Most Americans (according to polls) would agree with that also.
I also agree with conservatives that its a ridiculous double standard that parents have full control over their child’s medical decisions, including decisions that could be life and death, except for this one issue, which is somehow sacrosanct. At the very least there should be parental notification rights.
We need to stop dumbing down complex policy issues.
Report Post »The_Modern_Patriot
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:05pmWho is Rick Santorum again?
Report Post »1stgenmill
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:09pmHaahhaaa.
Report Post »rockstone
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:13pmOh… He’s a guy running for president that appears to be much more principled than Herman Cain.
That’s who.
No thanks needed……..
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:48pmI don’t know that Santorum is more principled than Cain, but he knows how to articulate and defend his principles at the drop of a hat better. That’s a valuable skill, and one Cain should pay attention to.
Report Post »survivorseed
Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:48pmJust google him and then you will know.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on October 21, 2011 at 7:15amYes, google him and you will know how strong he stands on his convictions that the gay fascists are so afraid of him that they must smear him with a google bomb. You are known by your enemies.
Report Post »