Cain on Abortion

A Phoenix rising out of the ashes or simply another politician who has found a way to put his foot in his mouth? Either way, Herman Cain has certainly found a way to draw further attention to himself. His remarks these past few days on abortion are certain to cause a greater scrutiny of his candidacy for the GOP nomination for the Presidency.

Based on what he said to Piers Morgan on CNN, it would be easy to argue he was pro-abortion. The media was certainly quick enough to pick up on that possibility. Yet that doesn't seem entirely fair to Cain, who appeared more concerned with, well, showing concern for someone in an unfortunate circumstance (seeing as the question involved a woman pregnant through rape). Being against abortion does not mean lacking consideration of someone in a bad situation not of their making. Seen on that level, what Cain said shouldn't be taken as supporting abortion. It's simply stating that those in tough spots may not always act in the best way and it isn't unfair to recognize the circumstances.

But the media, who want to sensationalize, indeed who want civil war within the Republican camp, don't want to understand fine lines. Too many voters as well refuse to see nuance: either yer fer us or agin us, and that's that. Under such circumstances, almost anything you say which doesn't appear hard line and hard nosed will be seen as vacillation.

Perhaps Cain was attempting to avoid the issue altogether by trying to walk a tightrope. If that's the case then he has another lesson to learn: speak clearly, especially on important issues. It's okay to say that we well ought to feel empathy for a woman pregnant by rape, but that abortion is still a serious moral evil which cannot be seen as an answer even then. You won't alienate the liberal voters who will be against you anyway, nor the conservative voters who have at least a shred of decency for a human being in a tight spot.

Cain told Fox News yesterday that "Abortion should not be legal, that is clear". He further said that he would appoint pro-life judges, nor fund abortions or Planned Parenthood. He was only trying to, not intending to put words in his mouth, sympathize with someone. It isn't all that outlandish of a concept.

At this writing we are satisfied that he is pro-life. But we hope he might learn something from this: it is difficult to draw too fine of a line on subjects as near and dear to so many voters as abortion. When you attempt to make very particular distinctions, people simply don't listen. That's shame on them, not the candidates, to be sure. Yet it is all too great of a reality in modern American politics.