Right On Life

Christian, Pro-Life, Conservative

Herman Cain, A Man Without a Country: Unprincipled Pro-Abortion and Ineffectively Pro-Life.

I Kings 18:21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

Herman Cain can’t make up his mind whether he is pro-life or pro-abortion.  He wants to ride the fence, so let’s let him.  But I have two suggestions for what to call his position.

First, Unprincipled Pro-Abortion. I don’t mean unprincipled and pro-abortion. I mean unprincipled pro-abortion. He is pro-abortion for sure, but not on principle, but rather on purely pragmatic grounds. This will never do for those who (like The Fonz) can’t bring themselves to ever say the word “b-b-b-b-a….  Fetus.” Cain is no Barack Obama, who never met a single baby that ought to be protected,even one already outside the womb, once that baby has been declared a choice. But Cain is different, more nuanced.  He can go long stretches without the pro-life community even noticing he is not one of them. No pro-abort of principle would ever be found hanging out with pro-lifers.

Second, Ineffectively Pro-Life.    Just as Mitt Romney loves to say he was “effectively pro-choice”, rather than (really) pro-choice, Cain says he is pro-life, but as the transcript below seems to indicate, would not lift one finger to actually stop abortion.  He mouths the words, but his true intent is elsewhere.  Cain has joined a growing number of supposedly pro-life candidates (like Gingrich, Romney and Perry) who are really pro-choice. The only thing Cain has going for him is that he finally admitted it (kinda).  In an interview with Piers Morgan of CNN, Cain started off fine.

MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why —

MORGAN: No circumstances?

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but —

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

So far, so good.  No exceptions, not one baby should be killed.  But then Cain went off the railing.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.

CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?


CAIN: You’re mixing —

MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively — you might be president. You can’t hide behind now the mask, if you don’t mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don’t. 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.

MORGAN: That’s a very interesting departure —

CAIN: Yes.

MORGAN: — from the normal politics.

CAIN: Exactly.

Now how in the world does Cain go from saying that life begins at conception and he doesn’t believe in exceptions to the idea that the government should stay out of the family’s decision.    I’d like to give Cain the benefit of the doubt and assume he is only talking about the unsocial decision to abort a baby descended from a criminal, but as readers of my previous blogs on this issue know, it isn’t much of a benefit.  I consider that position unprincipled pro-abortion and ineffectively pro-life.  Perhaps he did misspeak and was only referring to the son or daughter of a rape victim that should not be protected.  Then, at least, admit it then.  Stop with this nonsense that you don’t believe in exceptions.   Man speaks with forked tongue.


20th October 2011 5:52 AM - Posted by | Abortion Reasoning | , , ,


  1. Cain released this statement to clarify his statements about abortion in the interview quoted above:

    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”

    Are his remarks not quite lining up here?

    Comment by Right On Life | 21st October 2011 12:20 AM | Reply

  2. Thanks for checking my site out.

    Anyhow, I think he’s tripping himself up. It almost sounds like what he’s saying is not what he means, that he’s using a wrong choice of words.

    As I noted on Caffeinated Thoughts, every woman has, does and will make choices whether or not abortion is legal. So, in a sense, she has a right to chose. However, someone breaking into a home and holding a gun to your head also has a right to chose whether to pull the trigger. Just because someone has a right doesn’t mean that fulfilling it is the correct path.

    Think of this in the broader context of human nature and sin. In a sense, we have a “right” to do what we whatever we want. Of course, when you really parse through this philosophically and theologically we do not truly have that right, but still, if we are creatures with individuality and will, then on a particular level we do have an inherent “right” to make our own choices, good or bad. We do this daily in our own lives, often not sinning. We also often chose unwisely according to our own desire and sin, hurting ourselves and/or others tangibly or intangibly.

    To this end, Mr. Cain if he were President cannot force a woman to decide not to get an abortion. He doesn’t have that “right”. However, he can promote and create laws and regulations that promote life from conception letting people know that you can chose to have and/or perform an abortion but there will be legal consequences.

    If Mr. Cain does become president, I suspect he’ll become a one-termer too, if only because while he’s often got a good message, when speaking off the cuff he comes across as waffling – legitimately or not. In this respect Mr. Cain is like most Americans. We often talk faster than we can think, thus sticking our foot in our mouths unintentionally.

    I am completely pro-life but have a realistic view of the world at the same time. I might be able to give a good speech – if I don’t put people to sleep – but I do better responding to questions in written form rather than verbally. Still, even when writing I probably come off as contradictory and/or confusing just as I would orally discussing a point. I’m pro-life and I’m neither pro or anti choice. I’m anti choice in that the government should make abortion legally available, but I’m not anti choice in preventing people from obtaining an abortion because it’s just not realistically possible. Countries that outlaw guns still have criminals with guns. Does this make sense?

    As Mr. Cain seems to have this typical problem – of which Mr. Obama shares – he’s going to be seen as a fence-sitter, a flubber, a confusing person. The media will continue to hound him for clarifications on every point.

    Mr. Cain is experiencing quite a bit more attention than when he first entered the race and thus the media is focusing on him and they are trained to nail jello to a wall. If Mr. Cain wants to succeed, he’s going to have to learn how to space himself, be succinct and forthright at the same time. I think he’s feeling too at ease with the media and too willing to come off as open and quick. Maybe he needs to take some training from Don Rumsfeld on how to deal with and answer media questions!

    Perhaps also what he needs to do is sit down and write out his thoughts on the abortion issue, sit on it for a while, polish it and then release it and learn it so that it comes off his tongue quickly and is iron-clad.

    I think what it boils down to is that Cain talks too much – just like myself! To that end, he unwittingly stuck his foot in his mouth and said things which confuse both sides – though at the same time sound appealling to the majority of Americans which have a rather libertarian view on abortion.

    Comment by wadingacross | 21st October 2011 10:06 AM | Reply

  3. Oh, you may also want to add a link to the post on CT. Add a few more tags too. Just some thoughts on driving some traffic to your site.

    Comment by wadingacross | 21st October 2011 10:08 AM | Reply

  4. I appreciate your reply. I think I would phrase things a little differently. A person may have the power to do a thing even without the right to do it. I don’t have the right to sin; but I have the power to sin.

    Comment by Right On Life | 22nd October 2011 5:48 PM | Reply

    • Well, there you go! Brevity is rare and difficult for me.

      Comment by wadingacross | 22nd October 2011 9:59 PM | Reply

  5. […] true! And after Cain revealed his surprising position on life (on the 19th), quite right to […]

    Pingback by Perry: Right and Wrong | Right On Life | 24th October 2011 1:51 PM | Reply

  6. […] David Shedlock in this RightOnLife.org’s inaugural blog, “Herman Cain, A Man Without a Country“, criticizes Cain for being pro-abortion because Cain said  …it comes down to it’s […]

    Pingback by NARAL Says Cain is 100% Pro-Life « Right On Life | 27th October 2011 1:07 AM | Reply

  7. […] at Right On Life have posted strong criticisms of Herman Cain and Ron Paul; but we’ve stopped short of an anti-endorsement. Right On also recommends someone […]

    Pingback by Romney and Gingrich Are Pro-What? And Who Is On RightOn’s Short List? « Right On Life | 30th November 2011 8:54 AM | Reply

Leave a Thoughtful Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: