Herman Cain On Abortion: Say What?

In Search of an Answer?

John Stossel asked Herman Cain about his position on abortion.  Cain seems to take the position that government should stay out of the issue entirely.  This would imply that he’s for continuing legality of the procedure.  The problem is, he also says he doesn’t think it should be legal.  That seems to contradict his first line.  I am having as much trouble trying to figure out what Cain’s stance really is on the issue.  He gives one more attempt to clarify it at the end, but again, it seems to contradict what he has already said.  Am I being difficult, or is Stossel?  I get the sense that Herman Cain is trying to have both sides of the issue.  He wants the state to stay out of it, but he doesn’t want abortions performed, but he’s not going to tell a woman not to have an abortion, and before you know it, I am confused about his position.

It simply appears that there exists some huge ideological or philosophical disconnect on his part, and his answer simply isn’t very satisfactory, if only because I walk away from the discussion not really understanding what his policy as President would be on the matter.  Take a look and see if you understand his position any better than I do:

The problem with all of this is that I like Herman Cain.  I like him because he seems willing to go after certain issues that others seem to avoid like the plague.  He’s a genuinely stand-up fellow, and he certainly seems to mean well.  I simply don’t think he’s spent enough time preparing on the specifics of some of these issues.  For instance, if you asked me about abortion, my answer would be a good deal more concise, and it wouldn’t leave any doubt in your mind as to my position.  It also wouldn’t please everybody.  I might say: “I believe human life begins at conception.  Since our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness owe to “Nature’s Law and Nature’s God,” it means these rights are unalienable, and not subject to the whims of others, and government exists to guarantee these rights.  The only instance in which abortion should be permissible is as an act of self-defense on the part of the mother.”

Are you confused about my position? What about Mr. Cain’s?  I wish he’d spend some time clearing up his positions.  It frequently seems as though he has canned, glib responses that lose all their effectiveness the moment a follow-up question is added into the mix.  It’s as though his understanding of the range of issues is a mile-wide in breadth, but cellophane-thin in depth.  I certainly hope Mr. Cain is able to pick it up on this score.  I really like him, and while I don’t agree with him on all of his positions, where I can figure out where he stands, I certainly like his perspective in general terms.

Let’s hope he can clear some of this up!

Leave a comment ?

27 Responses to Herman Cain On Abortion: Say What?

  1. Bob Lambert says:

    I'm getting confused. You don't like Romney, you dont like Perry and now your trashing Cain. Who in your opinion do you like?

    • MarkAmerica says:

      "Trashing? " That's "trashing"? No, I'm sorry Bob, I'm asking a question. At the moment, I am undecided.

    • Michael Carpenter says:

      Hey Bob, which part of VETTING do you not understand? You people that get all bent out of shape because YOUR candidate gets hard questions or their answers don't make sense and then you jump on anyone who dares express those concerns, ya'll need to take a chill pill.

      • Bob Lambert says:

        Don't be insulting, that's what Libs do.

      • johnannegalt says:

        How, exactly, was Michael being insulting..? I turned to Cain when Palin announced that she would not be running out of desperation, knowing that Perry and Romney are possibly more liberal than Obama.. their obvious love of cronie-capitalism in itself is abhorrent.

        I started pushing for Cain, really, I did.. but his lack of a solid platform on a matter concerning life is disheartening. Even to those who consider a child in the womb inhuman, bear in mind that abortion has become popular through Planned Parenthood, one of the most racist organizations in existence. Margaret Sanger was a vile racist who wanted to extinguish the "lesser race" and make abortions widely available to primarily INNER CITIES… check into it, the abortion rate among african-american women in New York City is near 60%. It would serve in his best interest to crack down on said abortions and force people to take responsibility for their actions (remember, only about 2% of abortions are done in cases of rape). Spread your legs? Guess what, you may have a child. Go to college on massive student loans? Guess what, you may have a huge debt to re-pay. Buy a house you know you can't afford the payments on? Guess what, get a better job (or one at all). Shoot a man to steal his car? Guess what, you're going to face justice. The same goes for the hordes of people on welfare/WIC/food stamps.. keep having kids, you're going to have to start paying for them, rather than forcing others to pay.

    • Johnny Moore says:


  2. Tom Petricka says:

    Cain said: Life begins at conception, no exception". His explanation on "choice" means if a family or woman want to make a decision, it's their decision. In other words, he would make abortion illegal, and if a decision is made to abort, go ahead and break the law. That is what he meant by choice. He IS very pro-life.

  3. Jim Bell says:

    I understand his position completely. There is no provision in the Constitution that would give the Federal Government the authority to legislate any action regarding abortion. I do not support abortion in any way but the fact is, it is an issue for each state to decide according to the will of their citizens. This is just one of many examples of Congress exceeding the authority granted under the Framers Constitutional intent.


    • MarkAmerica says:

      So there is no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness at the federal level?

      • David says:

        Until the issue of when life begins is settled there will be no resolving the abortion issue. Notice your explanation of your stance on abortion begins with, I believe human life begins at… Opposing points of view also begin this way. Until the beginning of life issue is resolved the government should avoid assisting or funding abortions except in those circumstances that nearly every reasonable person can agree upon eg. incest

  4. Michael Carpenter says:

    The bottom line is Herman Cain is not yet ready for prime time. First he tries to paint Perry as a racist based on no evidence he knew was not there. Cain is lame on foreign policy and now he can't even answer three tries on abortion. The fact that he is trying to ride the fence and not give a clear answer should be sending up major red flags to anyone looking.

    Toss this candidate on the reject pile.


  5. The KellyJaye says:

    Here is the presser from Cain that he put out yesterday. I am 100% pro-life, but I also believe in our Constitutional Republic, and should rule by the law. As it is stands now, it is NOT against the law, and as a President he has to abide by that (Obama does not). What needs to happen is that personhood needs to be recognized by the SCOTUS if Roe vs. Wade is to be overturned. In the meantime, the Fed Govt needs to stay out of it. If anything, it should be handled by each State, and NO tax dollars should go towards abortion (if it is legal in that state), and measures should be in place to prevent some on just going to another State if it is illegal in her own State.
    "Dear Friends,

    The abortion issue is very serious. I believe strongly that this is true, and I believe that you do too.

    Because the news media loves to make mountains out of mole hills, I want to be very clear about where I stand on abortion:

    I am 100% pro-life, period.

    Let me explain. In an interview yesterday with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

    If you listen to the line of questioning, it is clear that Mr. Morgan was asking if 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 view on abortion…again, I am pro-life. End of story.

    As President, 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.

    Friends, please know that I appreciate all of your support. Together, we will put America back on the right track.


    Herman Cain"

  6. SeanStLouis says:

    Cain seems to make up his answers as he goes along.

    Integrity, conviction and complete understanding of critical issues are things that we absolutely need from our Republican nominee this time around and I'm not seeing this in Herman Cain.

    • Kells Bells says:

      I don't think he's making them up. I think he truly is in a "learning" phase" I mean, he's not a politician. I do believe he's genuine.

      • SeanStLouis says:

        Kells, you just illustrated my point. I'm not going to vote for someone who is still "learning" what they believe in and what they don't.

  7. Bob Lambert says:

    What do you say we find a person that has some good qualities that you like. Everybody has negatives, so how about some positives on all of them then we can add them all up at the end and the one withe the most wins.

  8. PalinSupporter2012 says:

    What about his 9-0-9 plan now? I thought the point was that "everyone" contrubuted to paying and now he has revised his 9-9-9 to 9-0-9 for some. This means the 9-9-9 plan is flawed and all of the testing he spoke about in the debate does not hold water. He is pitching a plan that now needs to be reviewed again and see if it will work.

  9. Robert says:

    Cain I believe is a Christian. So as president he isn't going to make someone not have an abortion. I'm sure he will never fund it also. If a woman decides to abort she'll be judged later. As a Christian I understand why that may be confusing to some.
    We have free will to make moral decisions it's not the place of the govt. to force us to make that type of a decision.

    • johnannegalt says:

      So, you're saying it's not the government's place to hold up the law, and defend the life of children? One of the government's few jobs is enforcing the law. I understand abortion is legal, but so is taxation without representation, both of which SHOULDN'T be. The only time when killing a child should be legal is when it isn't murder- but when it is an act of self defense (i.e. the existence of the child is infringing on the life of the mother). The same goes for if someone comes at you with a knife and you shoot them- self defense.

      I know many will try to use the rape excuse- as it stands, less than 2% of all abortions are performed in the midst of a rape. And simply because one horrific crime happens, you can't make it go away with another. To some, a child as a result of rape is a miracle, or a "blessing". The mother's body? The mother's choice? What about the child's body, or the child's choice? Guess what, it's a human being.

    • johnannegalt says:

      "We have the free will to make moral decisions".. yes, I guess we do. I guess that means we can all go on killing sprees without fear of justice (while alive)?

  10. Kells Bells says:

    MarkAmerica: Couldn't find an address for you. I thought you of all people would really dig my friend's videos on TheRioNorteLine.com.
    It's titled The Frankfurt School. Very disturbing…… goes hand-in-hand with what you were talking about yesterday……
    I.S. mentioned youon the site and so did I. Perhaps people will take advice from others and jump around to different sites. I have. Good to hear different voices.

    P.S.- Where are your Rule 5 pics :)
    Sorry. I'm naughty….

  11. The KellyJaye says:

    Here is more of my 2-cents – but I think it is important. The President is NOT supposed to overstep his bounds, and legislate the other two branches. He upholds the law. Do you want Cain, or any other President elect, to be a repeat of the current corruption that is the Obama Administration?
    You cannot win a debate on a social issue.
    The key is that as of 1973, unborn babies are NOT considered 'persons' in the eyes of the law.
    There is a movement that is working VERY hard and relentlessly across the United States to get the Personhood Amendment to pass. PLEASE go here http://www.personhoodusa.com/ and check them out. Support them as I have. Help the fight!
    From the site:
    "When the term “Person” is granted to a human being, it refers to the presence of a particular set of characteristics that grant that individual certain rights such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God given and constitutionally protected rights.
    This terrifies the pro-abortion foes!!!
    They know that if we clearly define the pre-born baby as a person then they will have the same right to life as all Americans do! This Amendment has the promise plugging the “Blackmun Hole,” a startling admission that if personhood could be established for the pre-born, the arguments in Roe would collapse.

    Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade in 1973, “The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

    During Blackmun’s time, the “well-known facts of fetal development” were a far cry from what is known today. Ultrasonography and DNA testing were yet to be invented. In 1973, most held that “life” began at “quickening,” or when a woman first feels movement of the baby in the womb at 18 to 24 weeks. Some even held to the “Recapitulation Theory,” the scientifically debunked notion that the human baby underwent his entire evolutionary cycle in the womb, being first a simple one-celled creature, then later a fish, then later a mammal, then finally a human, which of course now seems absurd.

    The science of fetology in 1973 was not able to prove, as it can now, that a fully human and unique individual exists at the moment of fertilization and continues to grow through various stages of development in a continuum (barring tragedy) until natural death from old age.

    If the Court considers the humanity of the pre-born child, for which there is overwhelming scientific evidence, it could restore the legal protections of person-hood to the pre-born under the 14th Amendment as Blackmun foretold, stopping abortion in a few and then in all fifty states!

    Explanation from abort73.com;

    There are essentially two issues which must be resolved concerning unborn embryos and fetuses. The first is, "Are they human beings?" The second is, "Should they be recognized as persons under the law?" We've already established that there is no debate on the first question. It is a matter of plain, objective science. Embryos and fetuses are fully and individually human from the moment of fertilization on. If this were not true, if unborn children were not demonstrably human, there would be no need to even talk about rights of personhood. "Removing a fetus" would be the moral equivalent of pulling a tooth. This, however, is not the case, and so the debate must now enter the political arena."

  12. C Bartlett says:

    I find it interesting that abortion is legal but killing a pregnant woman is against the law and considered capital murder because it is TWO murders. How can the fetus be a life that is killed in one instance but not in the other? Both of these are "law" ?