Replies

Interesting reversal. Not that it matters. Pier’s question COULD have been interpreted as asking if the kid would be raised by the mother, but Cain issued a press release later which clarified his statement, and told what he meant by his answer — and it was about government power and people committing illegal acts, NOT about adoption.

And it was pretty clear from Cain’s answer that he wasn’t really talking about the choice of raising a child or giving it up for adoption (not just because he didn’t simply say “That’s up to the mother, she could raise the child or give it up for adoption — it’s not like it’s hard to make things clear here).

But if we just continue your “second question” transcript, it’s clear Cain wasn’t talking about adoption.

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.

Why would Piers ever think that it was the President’s job to tell people whether to raise their children or give them up for adoption? That would make no sense. So it seems clear Piers didn’t think Cain’s answer was that Government shouldn’t tell women whether to raise or give up their children.

And then Piers said Cain’s views were not the norm, and Cain agreed. Cain certainly knows that NOBODY thinks Government should tell women whether they have to raise their children instead of giving them up. So it would make no sense for Cain to make a big deal of it, or for Piers to make a big deal of his answer or Cain to agree that his answer isn’t the norm.

But I will agree Cain’s entire answer is confusing, in part because Piers asked his question oddly, in part because sometimes Cain just decides he’s not going to answer a question, and then he answers some different question instead. That’s what happened here — the QUESTION was what Cain as a father would WANT his daughter or granddaughter to do, and Cain talked about what GOVERNMENT would do. Cain appears to not have wanted to answer the personal question, which was fine. But he didn’t answer it as asked anyway, because the correct answer to the “would you force women to raise a child of rape” is “Of course not — nobody has ever said that women should be forced to raise their children, and every state has safe haven laws which allow women to give their children up for any reason”.

But the reason I say this is all academic is that we know what Cain was trying to say, because he put out a statement:.
CAIN: “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.”

And remember, the Piers interview was only really a problem because Cain’s previous interview on the subject was even worse (Stossel):

Cain: I’m pro-life from conception, yes.

Stossel: Any cases where it should be legal?

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

Stossel: People should be free to abort a baby?

Cain: I support life from conception. No, people shouldn’t just be free to abortbecause if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception, we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.

Stossel: So I’m confused on what your position is.

Cain: My position is I’m pro-life. Period.

Stossel: If a woman is raped, she should not be allowed to end the pregnancy?

Cain: That’s her choice. That is not government’s choice. I support life from conception.

Stossel: So abortion should be legal?

Cain: No, abortion should not be legal. I believe in the sanctity of life.

Stossel: I’m not getting it. I’m not understanding it. If it’s her choice, that means it’s legal.

Cain: No. I don’t believe a woman should have an abortion. Does that help to clear it up?

Stossel: Even if she is raped?

Cain: Even if she is raped or the victim of incest because there are other options. We must protect the sanctity of life and I have always believed that.

Anyway, I believe Cain is pro-life, and I am not convinced that he would actually support government telling people they couldn’t have abortions. And I guess that once that was the law, he’d actually enforce the law, which I don’t get from his statements about presidential power but I have to assume he’d figure out eventually what a President actually does.