Wow, the dishonesty is astounding. I heard this clip this morning on talk radio and I was like “Et tu Brute”. But after Cain said thi was rare I knew he wasn’t talking abortion. The long knives are out and they have been dipped in dung.
Very good post. Hope you don’t mind, I used it on another site.
"No, it comes down to is, 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 try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.
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 a social decision that they need to make.
Sounds like Cain is covering all sides of the abortion issue and is coming out smelling bad. His position is similar to many liberal Democrats who say --- I personally oppose abortion, but I have no right to tell a woman she can't have an abortion.
So would I.
Yeah well the President is not a dictator. So that will not happen.
I can promise you this. Even with a Republican majority no Supreme Court Justice would be approved that took this stand.
Sorry but it’s just not going to happen.
Morgan is a twit that is trying to take votes away from the Cain camp.
Would a Cain Santorum ticket be wonderful or not?
First I’ve heard of any prolife stance from Cain.
IBTZ.
Not sure why - but this thread is doomed to be pulled.
I agree with him. But there is no way on this earth that he will ever be able to change the existing laws. There is no support in either house for it, and only a few states would outlaw it.
Non issue for me. Not that I am pro abortion, but that nothing will change because of a candidates stance on the topic.
Need a link to the transcript, so we can read the full interview.
Major mistake, none of them can hold a candle to Cain's pro-life stance. He is almost Alan Keyes level pro-life without the stupid antics.
Here is the part that calls into question your interpretation of the interview:
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?You could argue that, at the moment when Cain said Piers was "mixing two things", that Cain really did mean that "bring up that baby" meant to Cain "raise the child". Or, he could have meant that Piers was mixing up the idea of being personally opposed to something, and legislating it.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.
MORGAN: That's a very interesting departure --
CAIN: Yes.
MORGAN: -- from the normal politics.
CAIN: Exactly.
So, which is more likely? Well, in the next three answers, Cain clearly talks about how he wouldn't legislate his personal opinions on everything. And Piers questions him on that, noting that as President, "your views on these things" becomes important.
Now, note that under your assumption, Cain's "views" on the last question were that government had no business in the question of adoption vs keeping the child. If Piers thought that was what Cain meant, he certainly wouldn't have suggested that Cain would push THAT view on the nation, since Cain's view was that government wouldn't have anything to do with it.
So clearly, Pier's last question is about views Cain actually holds about abortion being wrong, even in the case of rape and incest.
But could Cain have understood Pier's last question to be about the adoption question, rather than about the topic, abortion? Hardly. Because if Cain thought Piers was talking about adoption, the ANSWER would be "I just said government would have nothing to do with that, so how could my views be a problem for anybody?"
SO it's clear that Cain, in his next answer, is answering the charge that he might legislate his views on abortion being wrong, even for rape and incest. And Cain's response is that he can have a personal opinion, without trying to legislate it. Which would mean he IS saying he wouldn't make abortion illegal in the case of rape and incest.
What else COULD he mean here? You'd have to argue that Cain completely lost track of the interview, and decided the question had nothing to do with his abortion position, in order for that answer to NOT be about Cain legislating his views on abortion.
And if that isn't clear enough, Piers THEN says that his position is a departure from the normal politics. What could Piers have meant about that? Cain just said he wouldn't legislate his personal view. Piers says that is a departure from the normal politics. It seems clear he means the "normal politics of abortion". He certainly isn't talking about Cain saying he wouldn't force mothers to raise children, because NO politician has ever said they would do that, and a statement like that would NOT be a departure.
But he also clearly isn't saying that Cain would make rape and incest abortions illegal, because Cain NEVER says that in his interview. He said he personally opposed abortion in all cases, that he was "against it", but then people shouldn't worry about him as president because he wouldn't legislate his own opinions.
So it seems clear Piers has decided that Cain just said he was personally pro-life, but wouldn't try to legislate that. At least in the case of rape and incest. That's the only rational understanding of Pier's question.
To which Cain replies Yes. So, what is Cain agreeing to? That his position is a radical departure? He certainly isn't "suddenly remembering" he was talking about rape/incest exception. If Cain had really decided to talk about adoption, his "yes" answer makes no sense -- his answer should have been "Not at all Piers, no pro-life person is trying to force women to raise children, just to give them the chance at life".
So what is his "unique" position? Is it about banning rape/incest? For that to be true, you have to think that Cain's previous two answers were about adoption, and then he decided Pier's short quip was BACK to the previous subject. That makes no sense.
And it clearly isn't about adoption, as I noted. No, it seems it is about his last answer. This makes sense -- Cain just gave an answer, Piers says the answer is unique, Cain says yes.
But what was that answer? It was that Cain would not legislate his personal opinion on the subject they are discussing. And again, that can't be adoption, because only a fool would think there was a question about legislating adoption, and Cain is no fool. So it must be about abortion. Cain said he wouldn't legislate his opinion on abortion.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he meant "abortion in the case of rape and incest", since that was the topic they were discussing. I don't think he was saying he wouldn't ban ANY abortions.
But two things are clear.
First, the rational interpretation here is that Cain decided to tell Peirs that he wouldn't make abortion illegal in the case of rape and incest.
Second, that Cain's answers were far from clear, if he meant anything OTHER than that he wouldn't legislate on this issue.
When a solid pro-life group thinks you just reversed yourself, it isn't THEIR fault, it is yours. Cain is supposed to be the great communicator. And yet he completely confused his audience, and the questioner, on this subject.
Here is the whole transcript: http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/do-we-really-know-who-herman-cain-is/
If you read the whole thing, Cain wants his cake and to eat it, too.