Herman Cain has been making waves lately with his opinions on abortion. In fact, he may have just lost most of his right-wing support while garnering some from those dreaded lefties.
Could Herman Cain be Pro-Choice?
It seems that the pizzaman has officially inserted both feet into his mouth after making some downright controversial comments during an interview. He said to John Stosell, about abortion:
"I don't think government should make that decision."
He then said close to the same thing later on Piers Morgan's CNN program. When faced with the hypothetical question on how he'd react if someone close to him was a victim of rape or incest, he responded:
"It ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make."
Herman Cain had a chance to redeem his comments this morning on Fox News in a quick Q&A with Martha MacCallum. Naturally, the Fox News anchor pigeonholed the guy, as he accused Piers Morgan of doing prior. Again, he reaffirmed what he said two times already -- that it's ultimately not the government's choice whether or not a woman gets an abortion. However, Martha MacCallum kept repeating the question, sometimes aggressively directing the question at him so as to hint to him that his answer isn't the desirable choice for their audience.
Stammering all over himself, Herman Cain finally resorted to saying that ultimately, women and even victims of rape and incest, would have to take it upon themselves to get illegal abortions. However, he never outwardly said that he wanted to criminalize abortions. He was firm in his idea that there should be no government funding of abortions, though. It seems that Herman Cain is pro-choice, but fiscally conservative. Is that a bad thing? It also seems like he is easily daunted when asked questions of this caliber. His reactions to the abortion debate show someone who truly doesn't want the government to tell a woman she has no right to choose, but yet he stammers over himself as he says these things; no doubt he just wants to say the right thing for his votes.
Basically, Herman Cain is right
The government should not tell people what they can do with their bodies. That includes abortion. Small government shouldn't be something that these ultra conservative types pick and choose from like some sort of political buffet. Invading a woman's uterus is not small government, and it's obvious that Herman Cain sees that.
Herman Cain insists that he's pro-life, but his words certainly show otherwise; or does it? Perhaps a person can be pro-life, but be in support of a pro-choice government. Gee, what a concept!(sarcasm)
---~~*~~---
©2011 Chelsea Hoffman is the Author of "Chloe and Louis," and the "Fear Chronicles," series of books. She also covers a myriad of true crime stories online. Click here to visit Chelsea Hoffman's official blog and contact website.
---~~*~~---
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 39
Good job, pizzaman!
I think Romney will be the nominee if for no other reason he will be the last one standing.
Great post! Thank you for sharing. Have a wonderful weekend!
You're ridiculous.
The opposite of pro-life is pro-choice. As in choosing to have a baby or choosing not to. All you conservatives talk about personal freedom and liberty, but you sure love to deny it to women.
certainly there are other Gather members who are getting a tad bit tired of you directly attacking them about their views. If you are pathologically unable to participate in a civil debate or discussion, don't try; because this is getting old and I'm tired of seeing the insults on others coming from you. Don't expect any of your comments to stay posted if you can't remain at least halfway civil/adult.
exactly how is that a contradiction?
or is 'pro-choice' a code that means any choice except pro-life?
he actually has the exact stance i have for my entire life - that my personal choice is to be against abortion, but that it is a moral decision, based on my own personal definition of morality.
no one else has to choose the same as i do.
why should i, or he, have to choose as someone else does?
see - this is exactly what i meant when i posted here the forst time, that the direction and tone of this post, was slanted to suit only one agenda, while claiming to be about free choice of any agenda a person wants to choose for themselves.
since i am unfamiliar with your own personal garrulos stylings, I inadvertantly thought a civil, objective, and ratinal discourse would prevail.
i certainly apologise for confusing you with anything other than a loquacious expression of audacious, callow, regurgatory aberrations.
my fault entirely for expecting more.