The inalienable right to life possessed by every human being is present from the moment of initial formation, and all human beings shall be entitled to the equal protection of persons under the law.
Herman Cain - Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?
Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has come under a tremendous amount of criticism lately in regards to several comments that he made about his pro-life position. Some have even gone so far as to accuse him of being completely pro-choice in spite of his assurances to the contrary. I am sure that you are familiar with the video clips already circulating the internet, but let me ask you to watch them again before reading the rest of this article.
|
|
|
Now let me ask you to watch the Stossel interview once more and keep in mind that Mr. Cain is neither a polished politician nor an experienced debater but rather a very literal and matter-of-fact business executive. I’ll admit that the first time that I watched the Stossel interview, I was very tempted to come to the same conclusion that many of you originally came to, but I decided to withhold my judgment until after I had watched the clip again. On the second viewing, I came to a different conclusion – one that is more consistent with Mr. Cain’s character. Here’s what I saw:
The clip begins with Mr. Cain stating that he is pro-life from conception. Mr. Stossel then asks whether there are any cases in which abortion should be legal, and Mr. Cain responds by saying that he doesn’t believe that government should make that decision.
Let’s pause there for just a moment and consider exactly what was said during this part of the exchange. Listen to Mr. Stossel’s question again and keep in mind that Mr. Cain is literal almost to a fault. Mr. Stossel did not ask if abortion as a whole should be legal or illegal. He asked if there should be certain exceptions to a complete ban against abortion. Mr. Cain gave the correct answer to that question. The government should not decide to have exceptions to laws against abortion. His answer was a very literal and specific answer to a question that most of us heard in a very general sense.
As we continue the video clip, we hear Mr. Stossel ask if people should be free to abort the baby, at which point Mr. Cain shook his head and reemphasized that people should not be free to get abortions. Mr. Stossel expressed his confusion and asked if the victim of a rape should be allowed to end a pregnancy. Mr. Cain replied that that is her choice not the government’s choice.
Let’s pause again and consider this segment as well. Most of us would consider the two questions in this segment to be equivalent, and I am certain that Mr. Stossel intended for them to be so. However, they actually appear to be very different questions when they are considered literally. The first is a question about freedom which makes it a legal question, but the second is a question about permission which makes it a personal question. When considered in that light, Mr. Cain’s answer to each question is revealed to be correct. No one should ever have the legal freedom to abort a baby, but in America, we have such freedom of choice that we do not have to seek the government’s permission before making a decision. We do have to suffer the consequences of wrong decisions that we make, but we do not have to ask permission before making that decision.
Believe it or not, this is actually a very important distinction for a politician to be capable of making. The difference between freedom and permission is an important component of American jurisprudence, and discussions of it figured very prominently in several early Supreme Court cases.
Let’s play the video again. Mr. Stossel asks directly if abortion should be legal, and Mr. Cain replies that abortion should not be legal. Mr. Stossel states that he doesn’t understand and that if it is the woman’s choice, then abortion must be legal. Mr. Cain emphatically denied that conclusion, and stated that a woman should not have an abortion even if she is raped because we must protect the sactity of life.
It is obvious from this segment that Mr. Stossel is completely baffled, but the problem is that he is not considering the literal implication of his own words. In his opinion, passing a law against something is the same thing as denying someone the right to choose to do that thing, but that is not how the American legal system works.
In America, we have an unalienable right to liberty. That means that each individual is free to make his own choices in life, whether those choices include obeying the laws and living peacefully or breaking the laws and suffering the penalty. Everyone has the right to choose, and no one is punished for making a choice. The penalty is only applied when someone acts upon the wrong choice.
I realize that this is a very narrow distinction, but it is an important distinction nonetheless. It is the difference between being convicted for robbing a bank and being convicted for deciding to rob a bank.
In the area of abortion, a woman would still have the right to choose to have an abortion even if it were completely banned throughout America. She would have that right because the decision to have an abortion is not the same thing as the actual action of having an abortion. Many women make the decision to have an abortion and then change that decision before going through with the actual act.
At the end of the clip, Mr. Cain made a statement that I’m sure baffled the world when he raised his hand and said “Real clear.” I doubt if anyone watching the show at the time would have agreed with that comment, but when we go back and examine the conversation more closely, we can see that Mr. Cain’s position is not only “real clear” but exactly right as well.
This analysis is perfectly consistent with the other two interviews as we can see from Mr. Cain's statement on Fox that, "If that family made a decision to break the law, that's that family's decision. That's all I'm trying to say." This is the kind of choice that Mr. Cain was speaking of – not a woman’s choice between two equally valid options, but rather a choice between right and wrong. It reminds me of a similar choice which was presented before a nation many years ago: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).
The clip begins with Mr. Cain stating that he is pro-life from conception. Mr. Stossel then asks whether there are any cases in which abortion should be legal, and Mr. Cain responds by saying that he doesn’t believe that government should make that decision.
Let’s pause there for just a moment and consider exactly what was said during this part of the exchange. Listen to Mr. Stossel’s question again and keep in mind that Mr. Cain is literal almost to a fault. Mr. Stossel did not ask if abortion as a whole should be legal or illegal. He asked if there should be certain exceptions to a complete ban against abortion. Mr. Cain gave the correct answer to that question. The government should not decide to have exceptions to laws against abortion. His answer was a very literal and specific answer to a question that most of us heard in a very general sense.
As we continue the video clip, we hear Mr. Stossel ask if people should be free to abort the baby, at which point Mr. Cain shook his head and reemphasized that people should not be free to get abortions. Mr. Stossel expressed his confusion and asked if the victim of a rape should be allowed to end a pregnancy. Mr. Cain replied that that is her choice not the government’s choice.
Let’s pause again and consider this segment as well. Most of us would consider the two questions in this segment to be equivalent, and I am certain that Mr. Stossel intended for them to be so. However, they actually appear to be very different questions when they are considered literally. The first is a question about freedom which makes it a legal question, but the second is a question about permission which makes it a personal question. When considered in that light, Mr. Cain’s answer to each question is revealed to be correct. No one should ever have the legal freedom to abort a baby, but in America, we have such freedom of choice that we do not have to seek the government’s permission before making a decision. We do have to suffer the consequences of wrong decisions that we make, but we do not have to ask permission before making that decision.
Believe it or not, this is actually a very important distinction for a politician to be capable of making. The difference between freedom and permission is an important component of American jurisprudence, and discussions of it figured very prominently in several early Supreme Court cases.
Let’s play the video again. Mr. Stossel asks directly if abortion should be legal, and Mr. Cain replies that abortion should not be legal. Mr. Stossel states that he doesn’t understand and that if it is the woman’s choice, then abortion must be legal. Mr. Cain emphatically denied that conclusion, and stated that a woman should not have an abortion even if she is raped because we must protect the sactity of life.
It is obvious from this segment that Mr. Stossel is completely baffled, but the problem is that he is not considering the literal implication of his own words. In his opinion, passing a law against something is the same thing as denying someone the right to choose to do that thing, but that is not how the American legal system works.
In America, we have an unalienable right to liberty. That means that each individual is free to make his own choices in life, whether those choices include obeying the laws and living peacefully or breaking the laws and suffering the penalty. Everyone has the right to choose, and no one is punished for making a choice. The penalty is only applied when someone acts upon the wrong choice.
I realize that this is a very narrow distinction, but it is an important distinction nonetheless. It is the difference between being convicted for robbing a bank and being convicted for deciding to rob a bank.
In the area of abortion, a woman would still have the right to choose to have an abortion even if it were completely banned throughout America. She would have that right because the decision to have an abortion is not the same thing as the actual action of having an abortion. Many women make the decision to have an abortion and then change that decision before going through with the actual act.
At the end of the clip, Mr. Cain made a statement that I’m sure baffled the world when he raised his hand and said “Real clear.” I doubt if anyone watching the show at the time would have agreed with that comment, but when we go back and examine the conversation more closely, we can see that Mr. Cain’s position is not only “real clear” but exactly right as well.
This analysis is perfectly consistent with the other two interviews as we can see from Mr. Cain's statement on Fox that, "If that family made a decision to break the law, that's that family's decision. That's all I'm trying to say." This is the kind of choice that Mr. Cain was speaking of – not a woman’s choice between two equally valid options, but rather a choice between right and wrong. It reminds me of a similar choice which was presented before a nation many years ago: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).
Addendum
"I've added my analysis to Bill's exquisite analysis. He's 100% right -- in fact Cain is making a pro-Personhood statement. Two of them! When Cain says abortion is a 'choice' that a family has to make, he's not at all saying it should be a legal choice. And when he says it's not a decision government should make, he's saying government has no authority to abrogate a person's inalienable right to life by making exceptions to the Right to Life. If you think I may be overstating, look again at the Stossel interview, which starts off talking about illegal drugs. The guest asks Cain, 'Shouldn't it be our choice if me or Mr. Stossel want to get high?' Cain says 'It already is.' Meaning it would be an illegal choice, but it's a choice you can make. He reiterates he's opposed to legalizing drugs, so when he says they have that choice he's not saying it's a legal choice. He's using the same construct with abortion -- a family still has a choice to try to get an abortion, and though it's not legal and Cain doesn't support abortion it's still a choice a family can make (a wrong choice)."
Ed Hanks - former speechwriter for the Governor of Colorado, former Press Secretary in the Colorado House of Representatives, and author of the upcoming book Persons not Property.
Here is a clip of the earlier segment of the Stossel interview:
Ed Hanks - former speechwriter for the Governor of Colorado, former Press Secretary in the Colorado House of Representatives, and author of the upcoming book Persons not Property.
Here is a clip of the earlier segment of the Stossel interview:
