Herman Cain’s Muddled Abortion Logic (Updated)

Presidential candidate Herman Cain appeared on the Piers Morgan show last night, and the conversation turned to the topic of abortion.  It’s a fascinating read because at first Cain appears to be giving an absolutist pro-life position – opposition to abortion in all circumstances.  Yet Cain then gives a response that seems to suggest that while he’s personally pro-life, well, you know how this ends:

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.

Hmmmm.  In the interests of fairness, here is the entire abortion discussion in context:

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.

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?

MORGAN: Why?

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.

There are several charitable interpretations available for Cain’s remark.  They had been talking about the rape exception, and perhaps Cain was still referring to that aspect of the discussion.  Also, Cain’s bristling at Morgan’s assertion that the president can issue directives is justified under the current Roe regime.  Finally, Cain doesn’t absolutely state an opposition to interfering with the “right” to an abortion, but is making a general statement about how the government should refrain from interfering in social issues.

Now, those are the charitable interpretations.  But even when discussing his opposition to abortion in the case of rape and incest, Cain said this:

So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

That’s a pretty big sign that Cain is, in essence, pro-choice.  He clearly states that it’s up to the mother to make the choice – meaning that he is perfectly willing to allow women the option of aborting their children.  In other words, he has taken the John Kerry position on abortion.

A final interpretation is that Cain just stumbled in his response.  Well, if that’s the case, then his stumbling responses have become a pattern.  So much for the slick sounding conservative darling.

Update: Katrina Trinko discusses this interview, and also provides some more background.

But it’s worth mentioning that, as I noted the other day, Cain chose not to run for Senate in 1998 partially because he was unsure his views on abortion would be compatible with the most ardent pro-life voters. ”[W]ith the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing,” Cain told Nation’s Restaurant News, adding that he was “not a social-issue crusader” but a “free-enterprise crusader.” However, whatever his concerns were in 1998, he did run as pro-life (no exceptions in cases of rape and incest — the only exception he ran on was for the mother’s life) in the 2004 Georgia senate race, and won an endorsement from Georgia Right to Life that election cycle.

So he’s ardently pro-life when convenient.  Hmmm, that sounds familiar.

At any rate, Donald’s initial comment below hits the nail on the head.

56 Responses to Herman Cain’s Muddled Abortion Logic (Updated)

  • Mike Petrik says:

    I agree, Don. It is very difficult to read that transcript without concluding that Cain is passionately pro-life, but believes that government should not enact or enforce laws prohibiting abortion. That is a pro-choice position akin to saying I think slavery is horribly immoral and I could never own one, but it is not the government’s business if my neighbor wants to own one. Sadly, I’m not sure Cain is sophisticated enough to appreciate that this position is pro-choice.

  • c matt says:

    I don’t understand the logic that the government should stay out of social decisions. By definition, social decisions are those that affect society. If the government is not for protecting and promoting the good of society, what the h*ll is it for? Perhaps this was a slip and he meant personal decisions. But even personal decisions can affect society.

    One other charitable interpretation may be that he was referring to the decision to raise the child as opposed to give him up for adoption. The question to which he responded was “would you honestly want her to bring that baby up as her own?” That would suggest he was responding to the decision whether or not to put up for adoption (the family/mother’s choice), not whether or not to have an abortion.

  • c matt says:

    In fact, Cain’s comment that the questioner was “mixing two things” makes it more likely Cain was referring to the decision regarding adoption. The questioner indeed seemed to be mixing to things (1) whether they should ahve a choise to abort (which Cain appears to be against) and (2) whether the mother/family should be forced to raise the child – which Cain states is a choice for the mother/family to make, not the President or government.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    That would suggest he was responding to the decision whether or not to put up for adoption (the family/mother’s choice), not whether or not to have an abortion.

    It’s possible, but if you look at his entire answer to the question it seems pretty clear he’s talking about the gamut of options available, presumably including abortion.

    In fact, the more I look at that response, the more convinced I am he’s not just talking about the decision to adopt.

  • John Henry says:

    The man is making it up as he goes along and is definitely not ready for prime time.

    That seems obvious to me, but I’m puzzled by the polls showing him in the lead. Are these people not watching the debates, or are they watching them but not understanding the issues?

  • Kyle Cupp says:

    Agree with Donald. Herman Cain doesn’t seem to have thought much about abortion-related policy and what, as president, he would do regarding it. His positions are incoherent and detached from any reference to what the policy currently is and what it should be.

  • Donald is correct – Herman Cain is making things up as he goes along. Nevertheless, if it comes down to a choice between imperfect Herman Cain and the man of sin currently in the Oval Office, I shall proudly vote for Herman Cain.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Are these people not watching the debates, or are they watching them but not understanding the issues?

    One of the problems with these debates is that it seems people are so focused on the style, or how candidates answer the questions that they’re ignoring the substance of what is being said. It drives me batty.

  • “Are these people not watching the debates, or are they watching them but not understanding the issues?”

    The conservative base of the Republican party do not want Romney as the nominee which is why he can’t get above 25%. They rally around the name of the month in order to attempt to come up with a viable alternative. Hence the boomlets for Bachmann, Perry and now Cain. Next month I predict Santorum or Gingrich will have a moment in the sun.

  • RR says:

    “I’m puzzled by the polls showing him in the lead. Are these people not watching the debates, or are they watching them but not understanding the issues?”

    I doubt most of the people who watched the last debate knew what the VAT candidates were referring to is. Most Americans cannot begin to comprehend tax policy. They just know they don’t like taxes. So they hear what sounds like a pizza special and like it. This goes for other issues too. Simple-sounding solutions well presented, however stupid, can get a good deal of support.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Herman Cain tweets:

    “I’m 100% pro-life. End of story.”

    Well that certainly settles that. Good to know that Cain is really working to clarify his positions in such fine detail.

    Here’s a challenge for the Cain campaign: try to make it through a week without making a statement that you have to later backtrack from.

  • Dale Price says:

    The reason Cain has as much traction as he does is simple: he’s the Not-Romney of the Month. If the putative front-runner didn’t cause hives in the base, Cain would be a footnote figure on the same polling level of Santorum or Bachmann.

    And I heartily concur with the not-ready-for-primetime assessment. Hell, I don’t know if he’s ready for public access. A cringe-inducing trainwreck in motion.

  • WJ says:

    Excuse me, but those of you who are Republicans, tell me something. (I’m not a Democrat either, by the way.)

    How can the Republican Party field a candidate, in this cycle of all cycles, that alienates the base!? The old saw is that the Republican party caters to their base while the Democratic party abhors theirs, but my sense is that there is a split between elites (for Romney?) and the base (Cain?), and Donald and others seem to agree. Don’t you people have better candidates? Really?! I mean, does it really come down to Romney or some unprepared wacko who doesn’t know what he/she thinks about major issues?

  • Foxfier says:

    Huh?

    In context, it seems very clear that he’s clarifying the “mixing two things” part– he already answered the point where the kid’s a kid from conception, and is saying that it’s not the gov’ts place to comment on ” If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?”

    He’s not a politician. He hasn’t had anyone beat into his head the “tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them” thing. (Part of why I can’t stand to listen to most pols, actually….) He explained his position, the guy tried to say that it had a secondary requirement–raising the child– and he objected, pointing out that the host’s assumption was none of the gov’ts business.

    Why isn’t anyone throwing a fit about the host talking about “as if” the baby was the woman’s? The child is her own– even if his father is a horrible person. My ex-brother-in-law is a horrible person, but I still love my nephew.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Sorry Foxfier, but I strongly disagree with your assessment. In context it’s clear he’s talking about the general role of government when it comes to the whole range of options. Especially look at the last part of this exchange – they’re no longer talking about just rape/incest and adoption. Morgan had broadened the question to one about abortion in general, and Cain made the comment about government not interfering in social issues.

    He’s not a politician.

    This is a weak excuse, and I keep hearing it from Cain defenders. I’m not a politician either, but I’m pretty sure that if I were in Cain’s place nobody would be confused as to where I stood. Again, this is a repeated pattern of the man simply not being clear.

    And as to him not being a politician, the man was a radio talk show host for years. He should be familiar enough with the issues for him not to sound like he doesn’t know what he’s talking about anytime he’s taken out of his comfort zone (economics). This is also not his first rodeo, and he’s run for public office before. He is woefully unprepared.

  • RL says:

    I mean, does it really come down to Romney or some unprepared wacko who doesn’t know what he/she thinks about major issues?

    I’m afraid it does. As someone who supports the GOP only in that I find them less rotten and wrongheaded as the Democrats, I find their inablity to put forth someone of true character, ability, and electability disheartening. Santorum is the only one who has the type of world view that I would trust to make sound and moral judgments, but I’m afraid he lacks in ability and electability.

    On the flip side, it’s not like the Dems have much of track record putting forth someone of ability, let alone of sound and moral judgment (the later being the antithesis to their platform and base).

  • RR says:

    Cain was more than ready for primetime in the 90′s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WP5dYfBBzU

    The lesson I take from that is that just because you’re good at one thing (e.g., running a business) does not mean you’re good at everything (e.g., tax policy, foreign policy, social policy).

    I see parallels to Sarah Palin. By most accounts, she was a good governor but she proved to know absolutely nothing about most things. Maybe, like Palin, Cain should start playing the victim and blaming the media.

  • From Donald: “Next month I predict Santorum or Gingrich will have a moment in the sun.”

    I think that Gingrich is primed for his move up the polls. My dad and little brother – independent of each other – both told me that they were very impressed with Gingrich after the debate. This is after they both went gung-ho on Cain.

    I don’t agree with them on Gingrich for a couple of reasons.

    As for Santorum, he’s still my preference at this point – but not a strong preference. On the issues, I like almost everything. I’ve got a bit of an isolationist streak, so his foreign policy is just a little off for me.

    As for demeanor, he comes off as too intense, too eager. He needs to look more relaxed and secure.

  • “Don’t you people have better candidates?”

    Yes. Off the top of my head we have Bob McConnell, Governor of Virginia, Marco Rubio, Senator from Florida, Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Demint, Senator from South Carolina, and quite a few others, none of whom have given the slightest inclination to run for the Presidency. A conservative dark horse who got into the race could have a huge groundswell of support, but the last time the Republican Party nominated a dark horse was in 1940 with Wendell Wilkie. I would not discount the possibility this time however.

  • Foxfier says:

    . I’m not a politician either, but I’m pretty sure that if I were in Cain’s place nobody would be confused as to where I stood.

    Of course they would– you’re a blogger! You expect some folks to be busily twisting your words. (I suspect that, even without being a blogger, few would doubt where you stand. Just a guess, though.)

    And Cain supporters keep pointing out he’s not a politician because folks keep acting as if they think he is– someone’s actions come across differently if you assume he’s use to selling his image, as opposed to selling a product as opposed to just doing something. (probably more aspects that don’t come to mind instantly)

  • Foxfier says:

    I don’t need to be charitable on that one:
    “No, abortion should not be legal.”
    “If it’s her choice, that means it should be legal.”
    “I do not believe in abortion in ANY instance.”
    “What about rape and incest?”
    “There are other options.”

    He doesn’t seem to be using “choice” the way most politicians do– to mean “ability to kill the inconvenient human.” If he hadn’t flat out said “Abortion should not be legal,” I’d think he’s more of the standard double-speak politician than I’ve been assuming; since he flatly said “abortion should not be legal,” then I must assume he’s either using “choice” in a way other than the usual life-rights jargon one, or he’s not in his right mind. Lacking any other evidence that he’s not in his right mind, and looking at the other instances where he simply doesn’t know the jargon, I’m going with “he’s not even a political junkie, let alone a politician.”

  • Foxfier says:

    For comparison’s sake, I just called my mom, a young boomer who doesn’t do politics but is familiar enough with being anti-abortion to be able to have a conversation about embryonic vs adult stem cells; she didn’t know what the right of return was, had never heard of “neoconservative,” and defined “pro-choice” as “right to kill your baby.”

    To my mind, this supports the impression that jargon is getting in the way.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    Shorter Herman Cain: I am pro-life but it’s a woman’s choice if she’s raped but I don’t think it should be legal to abort but I don’t think the government should tell her what to do.

    Yeah, how can anyone possibly be confused by such clear, concise thinking?

    Sorry, this isn’t about him being confused by “jargon,” this is a man being confused by the English language.

  • Foxfier says:

    Sorry, this isn’t about him being confused by “jargon,” this is a man being confused by the English language.

    Given that he’s had amazing success in three different careers, I don’t think the assumption that he doesn’t understand English very well makes much sense. So, the old rule of “what I’m hearing may not be what he’s saying” comes in.

    Going off the Lifenews story, it looks like he draws a distinction between laws and “telling someone what to do.” A sensible thing to do, now that I see it, seeing as how the gov’t issues a LOT of non-binding instructions.
    He’s also aware of the limitations of the position he’s running for, which is dang near a selling point for me.

  • Paul D. says:

    I don’t like the fact that he had to issue a clarification on his abortion views, but it’s good enough to assuage my concerns as a pro-life voter.

    Per NRO:

    UPDATE: Here is a statement Cain issued today that clarifies a little more what he meant:

    “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 percent 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.”

  • Paul Zummo says:

    So, the old rule of “what I’m hearing may not be what he’s saying” comes in.

    Again, the fact that the man can’t even make a statement about something as important as abortion with clarifying it later is a concern, as is this repeated pattern of making confusing statements about practically everything. Heck, he can’t even get the details of his own signature plan correct. This is not a selling point for me.

  • Blackadder says:

    Going off the Lifenews story, it looks like he draws a distinction between laws and “telling someone what to do.”

    Q: Any cases where [abortion] should be legal?

    Cain: I don’t think government should make that decision.

  • Foxfier says:

    Blackadder-
    and when asked to explain, he says there’s no case where it should be legal. Makes sense if he’s saying gov’t shouldn’t be able to say “OK, this medical method to kill those people is illegal” or if he misheard the question.

  • T. Shaw says:

    Herman Cain can’t “hold a candle to” the glib, policy genius presiding over America’s ruin . . .

    All I need to know: President Cain will veto guv $$$ for abortion and Planned Parenthood. Only other pledge wanted: to nominate solid, pro-life fed judges and fight for them in the face of dem/abort senate filibusters.

    Having built a grand career in the private sector, Mr. Cain probably has never seen his words twisted by evil people to make a trap for hate-filled people.

  • Chip Jones says:

    Perhaps, ladies and gentlemen, I am reflecting my own desires onto Mr. Cain, I’ll admit of that.

    But it seems to me that we are doing to Mr. Cain what has been done to every candidate, ever (with the exception, perhaps, of the incumbent, who can speak no wrong and do no evil). What is the foundation of Mr. Cain’s approach to governance? Following the Constitution. Why do we have the ubiquitous evil of abortion plaguing every state in our nation? a Lack Of Attention To The Tenth Amendment, and a federal government that wants to insinuate itself into every aspect of every person’s life, with no boundaries.

    I take all that has gone before as prelude when I hear him talk about abortion. I won’t parse his words. Frankly, it should not MATTER to us where a President stands on the issue of abortion, if he is a Constitutionalist (as opposed to a Constitutional Law Professor), and wants to return the power to determine policy on things like, oh ABORTION, to the States where it belongs, and where we can effectively fight for legislation to eventually outlaw it.

    It is no more Constitutionally correct for the Federal Government to legislate abortion as illegal than it is for the Federal judiciary to have ruled it LEGAL, without exception.

    So, when a man who believes that teh Tenth Amendment actually limits the authority of the Federal government says what was said here, I am not sure it concerns me. He’s committed to appoint judges in the style of Clarence Thomas (check!); he’s committed to defund Planned Parenthood (Check!); and most importantly, he has agreed to make the Federal Government play by Constitutional rules! Voila! We get teh Federal government out of abortion completely, and then Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, New York, Califormnia, and the rest of the States can determine the law for themselves! I likes that!

  • Foxfier says:

    As much as I agree on your other points– including wondering if I’m projecting on Mr. Cain!– on this:
    It is no more Constitutionally correct for the Federal Government to legislate abortion as illegal than it is for the Federal judiciary to have ruled it LEGAL, without exception.

    I have to disagree; the Constitution touched on who was fully human (going off of what rights they had) when it was written, and since then it’s been understood to apply to some basic things– just try making a law that men are not fully human and thus can be killed by their wives or mothers. Won’t work, same way that a 10th amendment attempt to bring back slavery, or impose Sharia, won’t work.

  • Art Deco says:

    The problem with Gingrich and Santorum is that they aren’t personable. You need to meet some minimum threshold of likeability to get above 5%.

    I guess the careers of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Michael Dukakis, Albert Gore, Jr., and Sprio Agnew, Spiro Agnew, Spiro Agnew were all just collective hallucinations.

  • RR says:

    Art, your list kind of proves my point. Nixon and Carter were the only ones who won. Nixon after losing once before and Carter was a one-termer. Gore won the Democratic nomination virtually unopposed, Hart never won the nomination, and Agnew never ran. Surprised you didn’t include John Kerry which would’ve been the best case against my theory. But Kerry was a bore, not unlikeable. Gingrich and Santorum are running on anger and they make people cringe.

  • RL says:

    And Carter was pretty likeable, especially when facing Ford. Dole too.

    Ya think? I doubt anyone found Ford inspiring, but I have the impression most people found him reasonably likable and generally a decent human being, even in spite of the Nixon thing.

  • “And Carter was pretty likeable”

    Thanks for the laugh RR. Naw, Carter always came across as a mean-spirited little twerp with a phony smile pasted on his mug, which is why he blew a thirty-four point lead against Ford in 1976, just barely winning a race by a hair that any Democrat, after the Nixon fiasco, should have won going away. (I think Ford would have won if Ford hadn’t claimed that Poland wasn’t under Soviet domination in a debate, and then was too proud, and foolish, to admit for several days that he had mispoke.) Here is a video of a truly likeable politician:

  • Art Deco says:

    Art, your list kind of proves my point.

    If you recall, your point was that someone had to have a baseline of ‘likability’ to garner more than 5% of the primary and caucus vote. Everyone on that list garnered the nomination bar Messrs. Agnew and Hart. Agnew most assuredly would have been a contender had his sideline of shaking down contractors not come to the attention of the U.S. Attorney. As for Hart, fully 38% of those attending caucuses and voting in primaries cast a ballot for him. 38% > 5%.

    Chaqu’un a son gout. Sen. Goldwater was given to bouts of tactlessness. Would not bother me, but a large portion of the electorate seems to recoil from that for whatever reason. As for Mr. Carter, there is a reason his preferred recreations (tennis, fly fishing, running, and hunting swamp rabbits) involve a minimum of conversation and teamwork. Ditto John Kerry, another ‘likable’ nominee.

  • Patricia M. says:

    “Muddled” more fits the activities of current office holders, but Mr. Morgan isn’t muddling around with them, although, in so doing, he would be ever so able to increase his ratings.

  • Chris A. says:

    Mr. Cain was just on Fox explaining that he mis-spoke. He said the reporter was trying to pigeon hole him on what if it was your child, life and death etc. He said what he responding to was, that at that point, no family is thinking about what the law says, they are thinking about their own child, family member, the baby etc. He said, there is no debate for him, he is pro-life. Life begins at conception thru natural death. He also said, he would strengthen laws that keep the govt out of supporting or paying for abortion and push for new ones to keep the govt out of it altogether.

    I for one, prefer a man who will say, I mis-spoke or I made a mistake than some others who are arrogant in their ‘conservatism’ or downright prejudice (Catholics aren’t Christian…see his pastor’s remarks about we Catholics) or who flip on the subject and you really do not know if it is sincere or not. While Mormons espouse and many fight for the prolife movement, in practice, abortion for all kinds of reasons are sanctioned.

    Herman Cain is being attacked because he is Black and ahead in the polls, that’s it. The MSM is afraid of him. Whether he could win the national election is questionable, the majority of independents are not ultra conservative.

    The question is, are people so fed up with Obama they will vote for whomever runs against him? While I hope so, I do not want to shoot ourselves in the foot by rushing in the the MSM to attack a solid human being like Cain.

  • Chris A. says:

    Sorry the arrogant conservative is Perry and I am not so certain how conservative he is. I like Romney but he has flip flopped on abortion and while minds and hearts can change, we don’t know if it is a real metanoia or not do we. Would I vote for him as the Republican candidate in national election? You bet I would.

    I am quite happy that Perry slid in the polls. I would have to vote for him if he were the candidate but I would be so unhappy putting someone who puts his pastor up as his shill…that is not a man who deserves the presidency either.

    We need to pray daily for this country and for a leader we can trust to steer us through what looks to be some very tough times ahead.

  • Paul Zummo says:

    but I would be so unhappy putting someone who puts his pastor up as his shill…

    If you’re going to bash Perry, then at least have your facts straight, as I assume you are referring to the Jeffress situation. He is not Perry’s pastor, and Perry didn’t even ask him to speak.

    Herman Cain is being attacked because he is Black and ahead in the polls, that’s it.

    Congrats, conservatives, we’ve allowed ourselves to become Democrats. Any critique of Herman Cain is now to be chalked up to racism. Let’s not actually examine the candidate or demand that he be mildly coherent when responding to straightforward, if hostile questions.

  • Foxfier says:

    Cain’s being attacked because he’s conservative (or Republican) and ahead in the polls– thus becoming a threat. *shrug* Doesn’t much matter, the best defense is to focus on the objection.

    Amusingly, the “middle of the road” talk show I listen to was bashing him for being “against women’s healthcare rights.” They think he’s pro-life!

  • stilbelieve says:

    “There are several charitable interpretations available for Cain’s remark.” Paul Zummo

    I don’t think “charity” is needed here.

    Cain’s answers to Stossel in the video clip cleared it up for me. I thought I understood Cain’s answer in the back and forth with Piers Morgan who started this being talked about by his peppering Cain with questions, not letting him complete a thought. See below:

    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’s answer was to the specific question, “…you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?” To which he then said to Morgan, “You’re mixing two things here, Piers.” Morgan had been talking about rape, incest, pregnancy and abortrion.

    Cain was right, Morgan was “mixing two things, having an abortion or be forced to “raise that baby.” Cain was saying government should not be telling the girl she has to “raise that baby.”

    His comments towards the end of the Stossel clip clarified for certain what Cain was saying when he said to Stossel about that situation, “there are other options.” That’s what Cain meant when he told Morgan you’re “mixing two things.” He was saying to Morgan, it isn’t a matter of having an abortion OR being forced to raise that baby…there is having the baby and giving the baby up for adoption (and I would add, as Steve Jobs was).

    Now as far as Cain’s following comments: “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.” Again the issue was the question, and the question dealt with being “forced” to raise a baby from rape or incest.

    Cain’s position here, and please forgive me if this sounds a bit presumptive, doesn’t seem to be much different than that of God’s; He allows them to make a decision they will have to live with. That is also similar to the U.S. bishops’ position as far as what can be done to make someone do what the Church wants them to do. In that sense, it’s not much different than how the bishops deal with Catholic politicians who vote pro-abortion and present themselves for Communion.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .