Herman Cain Abortion Position
It must be the post-Thanksgiving blahs that are clogging my brain because I keep going back and forth on what to write about this time around. Should it be the inside scoop on the partial birth abortion issue? Should I talk about sex selection abortions, the Army of God, a new form of birth control? So many things to discuss, back and forth, back and forth. I just keep flip-flopping around….
And speaking of Herman Cain!
How about the Caininator, huh? Mr. 9 – 9 – 9 (which actually sounds like something Adolph Hitler might have said when his generals suggested Germany surrender). Mr. Godfather’s Pizza, a possible sexual predator, the guy who couldn’t remember where Libya is. And now the abortion issue has bit him in the butt.
In an interview a few weeks ago, Mr. Cain actually said that abortion should be a decision left up to the individual, not the government: “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.”
Abortion Face the Nation
Welcome to our side, Herman! Ah, but then the proverbial poop hit the fan and within a day he was “clarifying” his stance on “Face the Nation” where he said that he is “pro-life from conception, period.” He then added that “My answer was focused on the role of the president. The president has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone.” Well, that certainly clarified things! He went on to remind the extremists in the Republican Party that he once said that Planned Parenthood was engaged in “planned genocide” and that their mission was to “help kill black babies before they came into the world.” Then, to demonstrate that he really hated Planned Parenthood he said that he would “oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood.” As if that were not enough, he ended the frenetic week by telling Fox News that abortion should not be legal, but the “family can make the decision to break the law.”
Phew! Is everything clear now?
Abortion
I think deep down ole Herman is actually pro-choice but he and his staff were just too stupid to do some research or else they would have discovered that you have got to be absolutely, 100 percent pro-life to get the Republican nomination for president. And if that means doing a total switch, like Mitt Romney has, that’s what you got to do. Heck, remember George Bush the First? When he was in Congress he was practically in bed with Planned Parenthood, leading the fight to provide them with family planning funds. Then he decided to reach for the Taco Grande and suddenly he became Mr. Pro-Life. And these switches worked the other way as well. For years, Jesse Jackson was pro-life until he decided to seek the Democratic nomination for President, then bingo, he’s pro-choice! It’s all part of the game.
Herman stepped into it because he is like the other 99.9% of the politicians in this country who do not want to talk about abortion. That’s because they, like the American public, are a little confused, they know it’s not always black and white, it’s not always right or wrong. But those seeking higher office need to cater to the purists in each party because they are the ones who run the nomination process. So, when the question comes up you can just see them start to squirm, they get red in the face and they spurt out a real quick answer to assuage their extremists.
Morality
It’s a sticky wicket, one that Mr. Cain got caught up in. But I personally think it is too late for him. He planted seeds of doubt within the pro-life community and now they do not trust him. And that’s a big deal in the state of Iowa.
Related articles
- Herman Cain Clarifies Abortion Stance, Stands By Planned Parenthood ‘Genocide’ Comments (huffingtonpost.com)
- Herman Cain Says No More Abortions Then Attacks Planned Parenthood (inquisitr.com)
- Romney and Gingrich Are Pro-What? And Who Is On RightOn’s Short List? (rightonlife.org)
- Herman Cain Pledges To Push Defunding Of Planned Parenthood (huffingtonpost.com)
- Cain: I’m “pro-life from conception, period” (cbsnews.com)
- Cain: I’m “pro-life from conception, period” – CBS News (news.google.com)
- LifeNews.com Pro-Life News Report 11/22/11 (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
- Planned Parenthood: Herman Cain Has No Idea What He’s Talking About [Video] (jezebel.com)
- National Black Pro-Life Union Raises Cain (deaconforlife.blogspot.com)
- Herman Cain Is Totally Pro-Life, Pro-Whatever Else Republican Voters Want [Politics] (jezebel.com)
- Cain signs anti-abortion pledge (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- National Black Pro-Life Union Raises Cain (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
- Well This is Unsurprising: Cain Signs Anti-Abortion Pledge (slog.thestranger.com)
- Herman Steps in It (abortion.ws)
- Planned Parenthood Responds To Herman Cain’s Criticism: Cain Is ‘Clearly Out Of The Mainstream In His Attack’ (mediaite.com)
- Planned Parenthood responds to Cain’s repeat criticism of the biz as racist (hotair.com)
- Cain Smears Planned Parenthood: Accuses Group of ‘Genocide,’ Says Its Goal Is To ‘Kill Black Babies’ (thinkprogress.org)
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
November 27, 2011 at 4:13 pm
When questioned, the candidate should say, “I will defend your right to have a baby. It will be my responsibility as President to see the tax money is there to provide your child with a safe neighborhood, a good education and a chance for a productive life. How much are you willing to have your taxes raised for that to happen?”
Herman Cain, Allan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele…. Republicans really like their lawn jockeys, don’t they? Adam Clayton Powell, Martin Luther King, Maxine Waters, John Conyers… Democrats put up with African-Americans who don’t play-act, don’t they?
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 10:33 am
Actually, Charles, I don’t think Allan Keyes was ever “play acting.” He was a genuine pro-lifer…
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Keyes? Definitely as bigoted and misinformed as any other self-proclaimed “pro-life rescuer.”
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Allen Keyes was a bigot? Where do you get that one?
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Pat, like Clarence Thomas and Herman Cain, both raised by very judgmental males, Keyes is bigoted against blacks by projection: his self-hatred is extended to all African-Americans as a means of justifying the correctness of his own low opinion of himself. It’s one of the big reasons that Republicans like him: not only does he “know his place,” but he helps them try keep all other non-whites in their place, just like Cain and Thomas.
He could work through it.
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 5:14 pm
lawn jockeys????
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Back in the day, travelers to a plantation would hand their horse’s reins to one of the house niggers, who would see to its comfort.
With the disappearance of the antebellum south, this particular slave was replaced by a statue, painted in a jockey’s livery and with lots of white to his eyeballs and prominent white teeth contrasting fiercely with the sepia of his skin. Hunched in a servile stoop, its right arm is forever extended to offer a hitching ring to the children at play. Lawn jockeys are still available and are usually no more than 30 inches high.
Rumor has it that Wall Street is going to put one next to its bronze bull and name it Barack.
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 3:15 pm
In fact, I think there are a bunch of them in front of the Jockey Club in New York City.
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 5:57 am
Politicians, like Cain, offer disingenuous comments about being prolife but offer nothing in terms of realistic reproductive health care. Over and over, we witness legislative leaders and presidential wannabes wringing the opportunistic vote-for-me hands about the abominations committed by the likes of Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia. But where were these leaders when poor women needed help? Where was the health department when they received reports of filth, negligence and deaths at the clinic? Instead the draconian leaders call for more constraints on family planning including abortion access (like SB 732 in Pennsylvania).
And rather than look at the realities of women’s lives, the politicians, pundits and prolife protesters blame women for having sex, for getting pregnant, and for choosing to abort their pregnancies. And if women do decide to carry their pregnancy to term, they will be blamed if they fail as nurturers, if they and their children need public assistance, or if their children fail in school or get into trouble with the law.
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 10:35 am
Are you saying, Kate, that the health department knew about some deaths in the clinic and did nothing about it? Did the pro choice movement know about Gosnell and, if so, should they have done something to bring attention to him? Indeed, should groups like NOW and others picket bad abortion doctors? Hmmmm
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 2:12 pm
It is my understanding that staff at several clinics knew about Gosnell and others like Stephan Brigham reported it to the PA dept of health.
But suggesting that organizations picket “bad” doctors is outside their expertise and their legal jurisdiction, thus opening them to lawsuits.
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 5:57 pm
In my state, there was a private school which “specialized” in problem children of wealthy families. It degenerated into a holding pen; the owners used it as a source for their equestrian expenses. It was inspected annually by any number of education, fire safety and health officials, but never once was it investigated until staff ripped the lid off. You can pretty much expect the same for any business these days. Grover Norquist’s dream of reducing government to the point where it can be drowned in the bathtub has resulted in this.
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 3:18 pm
You are correct, Charles, that lack of staff is a problem. And, yes, it’s gonna get worse. Imagine less FDA people to inspect drugs/food?
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 3:17 pm
It’s a sticky wicket….Years ago, I publicly criticized Steve Brigham (after meeting with him to try to get him to get his act together) and when it was reported in the paper, the next day I got a threatening letter from his lawyers. Now, that was intimidating! But if picketing a bad clinic puts someone in legal jeopardy, what’s the difference in picketing Dunkle’s house?
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 4:05 pm
The latter hasn’t engaged a lawyer.
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Cain is a Moron.
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I think he’s more like Steve Forbes, campaigning because he’s rich enough to do it, but not particularly interested in governing. He’d at best be another Reagan or Shrub, content to admire the polish on the desk in the Oval Office while his aides disembowel the Constitution.
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 3:19 pm
I think you’re right, Charles. And governing is not the same as running a company…
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 11:10 am
Since my post,
I read a snippet about Cain now being accused of having a thirteen year affair with documents to support the relationship – yet he claims there was no intimacy involved – at least it may have been consensual!
Has anyone validated that info? I have not had a chance to catch up on the news since.
LikeLike
December 4, 2011 at 7:23 am
Cain took the Cain Train home!
Too bad, he was sort of entertaining, and now the GOP might get a Candidate that actually has more than Gelatin where their brain should be.
Scary.
LikeLike
December 5, 2011 at 5:54 am
If the mainstream media weren’t totally devoted to making a profit by appealing to the stupid in all of us, he’d have been pointed out as weightless months ago. Ed Murrow and his CBS team would have pureed him back when CBS News was a news organization rather than a vehicle to get viewers to sit through to the next commercial . . . .
LikeLike
November 28, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Did anyone ever answer my question if they would be willing to place any restrictions on Abortion?
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 1:32 am
Well, yes, Andrea. I did, and was rather surprised that you never responded.
My limits are these:
That no woman who accepted $260,000 (the cost of raising a child through high school) for her pregnancy should be allowed to have an abortion, that every pregnant woman should have the right to demand and receive from any person she specifies $260,000 to continue her pregnancy, and that no person who had not paid a pregnant woman $260,000 should have any standing in her decision to have an abortion.
These limits on abortion would make fetuses EXTREMELY valuable, don’t you think? I do believe that all of a sudden they would become very sacred human lives. How about working to make it a law in your state?
LikeLike
November 29, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I did, Andrea. I talked about restricting third trimester abortions…
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 11:19 am
Thanks for repeating your replies. I can’t get to this site as often as many are able to do.
Responsible – I believe I saw your answer but didn’t know if you were being wildly idealistic. Do you really think, pragmatically, in this universe, your solution could ever be legislated?
Pat, thanks, I missed your response. You wouldn’t accommodate exceptions for the life of the mother?
More importantly, can anyone propose a solution to this dilemma that would actually be satisfactory to both sides and take the endless rhetoric off the table so we can as a country address serious issues that are being ignored because of the immense polarity and paradoxical ambiguity from candidates on Abortion who ultimately legislate?
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 11:35 am
What would be satisfactory to both sides? I ask these this question because this has been asked over and over, ad nauseum. Framing abortion as a two sided problem misses the very real fact that this is for more of a complex issue, in nuanced shades, not a black and white, for or against, issue. There are those who are against abortions in all circumstances, those who are in favor of abortion on demand without apology, those who view abortions somewhere between these polarities. Thus, there really aren’t two sides but more like positions along a continuum. So your notion of a singular solution is at best naive.
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 11:48 am
Kate,
Sadly, that was the (well not exactly) answer I had when I asked.
What do you think is the non idealistic and real answer that can pragmatically be implemented given our legislature?
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 3:55 pm
I’m not intentionally trying to be obstructionist but I have a problem with empty words like “real” and ambiguous concepts like non idealistic (why bother). But if I were to circumvent both problems in your question, I’d say that I’d like for the legislative leaders to get out of the business of playing morality police, of pretending to be doctors and of trying to run women’s lives.
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Of course, I would allow for an exception if the woman’s life was endangered! What I have said in the past is that I would have a problem is a woman who was perfectly healthy and had a perfectly healthy fetus wanted an abortion in the third trimester.
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Would you support a politician that had that on their legislative agenda?
LikeLike
December 1, 2011 at 8:22 am
I’m not a one issue person, but yes if everything else was fine, I could support such a candidate. Indeed, during the debate on Partial Birth Abortion, the pro-choice Senators offered an amendment bascially banning third tri abortions…
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 5:35 pm
and Andrea fades away. . . .
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 11:44 am
[…] Herman Steps in It (abortion.ws) […]
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we all could come up with five items that we totally agree on? E.g., do we agree that we should work to reduce the number of abortions?
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 4:11 pm
The interesting thing is that self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” will say “yes” to that proposal, but will not in large part admit to and support the logical consequence: the need to encourage contraception in order to reduce the number of abortions.
This is the point at which their stance stops being reality-centered and starts being self-centered: it is more important to them to have their feelings assuaged than to allow people to have guilt-free consensual sex.
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Five items? Let’s begin with
1. equal social regard for women
2. cultural expectations of female subservience
3. cultural definitions and expectations of motherhood
4. assumptions of heteronormativity
5. access to reproductive justice for all women–not just white middle- to upper class women who can afford it
Let’s start there. Then we can jabber on about reducing abortions.
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Kate has got it right on the money.
I see Nothing intrinsically wrong with abortion, except for the common nusuance it carries with every other thing we have to do in our lives.
Like going to the dentist is an annoyance.
The other issues are far more important.
The rampant worldwide misogyny from Pro Lifers to Genital mutilations are so serious, the technical procedure of abortion is nothing in comparison.
As is Responsible’s taking care of all the kids already around that are presently suffering is also a primary objective we should be concerned with prior to a singular focus on lowering the number of abortions.
LikeLike
December 1, 2011 at 8:26 am
I agree, Evan, that there is nothing “wrong” with abortion. And I totally get what Kate is saying. I guess I’m just thinking that this page is devoted mainly to abortion and I’m curious if there really is any common ground out there. And I have yet to hear from a pro-lifer about reducing the number of abortions. Of course, I want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the grander scheme of things. I mean, adoption ain’t the best thing since sliced bread and neither, for that matter, is giving birth to a child that you do not want.
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Andrea, a “non-idealistic solution” would be one that involves an objective standard. Money often serves that purpose. I see no reason why it can’t be used in the case of abortion.
It costs a minimum of $260,000 to raise a child to age 18. The most direct way to find out how much self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” value the life they claim is human is to require them to pledge the amount needed to take care of a child’s material and educational needs to adulthood– $260,000.
I eprsonally had no problem pledging to spend at least that amount when my child was born, and in the future I could see where I might be willing to pledge it again for another child. However, there are pregnancies for which I would not pledge it, distressed though I might be at the thought of the waman having an abortion.
I think that any “pro-lifer” concerned about the sacredness of human life should be as willing as I (and countless “pro-choice” parents to post that amount for each “unborn human” they want “rescued.”
If you feel $260,000 is too high, what would you suggest for an amount?
LikeLike
December 5, 2011 at 5:49 am
And Andrea, rather than committing herself to any amount, fades. . . .
LikeLike
November 30, 2011 at 1:12 pm
no pat, i think if we keep it constant, then people are given their rights and everything is constitutional, people are given their choice in life and we are allowing it.
LikeLike
December 1, 2011 at 8:23 am
Jerry, what post of mine are you responding to when you say “no, Pat”? Thanks!
LikeLike
December 2, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Very wise, about abortion perspectives among the young.
I Love your Abortion.com FaceBook Page!
LikeLike
December 3, 2011 at 11:01 am
Pat, you asked a rather provocative question that I’m been wrestling with off and on for several days. You asked if we could come up with five items that we totally agree on and I responded, albeit with too much of a divergence for your blog.
I would argue that we could agree on simple things like respecting the fact that we’re all human and should treat each other with the respect you should/could extend to a stranger. But we don’t. Even those folks who walk around with rosary beads praying outside abortion clinics are beastial name-callers. On the other hand, volunteers at clinics can be equally rude. I question if there is any incentive to be respectful. Certainly, there’s no apparent religious reason to be respectful. All I see from the self-proclaimed religious anti abortion activists is their using the same mouth that recites rote prayers also shamelessly harasses women.
As an aside, since I’ve been observing activists outside abortion clinics, I’ve come to realize that the combination of a weird interpretation of religion and their fetus fetish (they believe are fully formed babies at conception) creates monsters who take enormous energy to violate and dehumanize women and their companions. And what these thugs fail to realize is that they are at once both the angel and the demon, the prayerful and the depraved.
Their monster talk is convenient. It frees them from thinking about the sacredness of women. And with predictable frequency, they create a circus of the bizarre with performances of religiosity, banal rituals of fear mongering, and social repudiation directed at women and their companions. They point at escorts, women, staff and companions as evil when, in reality, they are projecting their own evil.
LikeLike
December 4, 2011 at 7:36 am
Kate:
You are totally right again.
I was shocked to actually learn – here on this blog where this lunatics are coming from.
It took a lot of reading and watching people banter back and forth.
It is mostly the Fanatical Religous fetish that is rampant worldwide sadly.
Christians think they are are better than other religions, but it appears Christianity, and past popes should be on Trial for massive crimes against humanity.
Back to my point –
Christians maniacal notion of a cell having a soul – I learned they believed that here, I never heard that before – helps one understand where they are at least trying to create some belief system that is not a stack of cards.
Trouble is, their Disturbance of thought, delusions and magical thinking I believe would Place them easily with a significant Psychiatric disorder as defined in the DSM.
Some are actual very severe psychotics as they have visual hallucinations also. Much worse than the people that just talk with their deity or have auditory hallucinations.
Maybe, in addition to Flouride for their rotting teeth in states like Mississippi, Alabama, etc., we should add a Neuroleptic to the water supply?
LikeLike
December 5, 2011 at 6:04 am
Evan, a person who has doubts about the value of his belief system gains comfort by finding another who holds those same beliefs. He gets even more comfort by converting someone else to them. Christianity and Islam are the only two world religions which proselytize. I think it has to do with an underlying insecurity which started with the founders
LikeLike
December 4, 2011 at 11:47 am
So, Kate, are you saying there aren’t five points of agreement between “us and them”?
LikeLike
December 5, 2011 at 6:00 am
Here are my five points that might be of mutual agreement:
1. At some point in their infancy most babies are cute, however briefly.
2. Each of us is at the least discomfited to think we might have been aborted.
3. It’s comforting to see a mother who loves her baby.
4. Women are designed to bear children.
5. Men are designed to have sex with women.
Once you get beyond those, things get whiffy.
LikeLike
December 18, 2011 at 5:05 pm
[…] Herman Steps in It (abortion.ws) […]
LikeLike