Herman Cain in the Daily Sun

[Guest]

An article in today's Daily Sun quoted Herman Cain saying his 9-9-9 tax plan WOULD raise taxes on some people. Of course, those people are the ones who can least afford to have taxes raised on them.

The article also stated that Herman Cain DOES NOT belive abortion should be an option in cases of rape or incest.

[Guest]

An article in today's Daily Sun quoted Herman Cain saying his 9-9-9 tax plan WOULD raise taxes on some people. Of course, those people are the ones who can least afford to have taxes raised on them.

The article also stated that Herman Cain DOES NOT belive abortion should be an option in cases of rape or incest.

He's a very religious man, and his faith is strong for life. Not everyone sees that as a detriment. I admire people who won't abandon their faith.

I don't think there was anyone who didn't think that some would pay more. Every candidates "proposal" has that "feature". Only Herman Cain is laying it out for you to see and debate before he's President. Everyone else you have to trust that their "plan" is not hyperbole. Trust has worked out real well in politics so far, hasn't it?

[Guest]

Cain has great qualities for business and would do the US economy well, I just don't see Republicans nominating an African American. We have too many in our party that feel that is not a good idea for America. Just my opinion, please no flames.

[Guest]

Good, bad or indifferent... Even if Cain were to be nominated and eventually elected, the 9-9-9 plan would go nowhere.

Think about it...the 9-9-9 plan is too simple to ever replace our complicated tax code system.

I'm not passing judgement on the plan, just the probability that it would ever get implemented.

[Guest]

I had to delete my original post and rewrite this. All I can think of is Lou Card. Don't know why. Wonder what happened to him? Someone from the bowling Alley says he still posts here.

[Guest]

Good, bad or indifferent... Even if Cain were to be nominated and eventually elected, the 9-9-9 plan would go nowhere.

Think about it...the 9-9-9 plan is too simple to ever replace our complicated tax code system.

I'm not passing judgement on the plan, just the probability that it would ever get implemented.

I don't disagree. There is too much power in the hands of Democrat and Republican legislators alike when it comes to taxes. There are ways to reward your supporters, pay back your "non-supporters" and to buy votes. Legislators are loathe to give up power.

It would take much public pressure combined with a Ronald Reagan-like charisma to get anything resembling Cain's 9-9-9 Plan to even a vote.

But I always liked those who try to put principle over expedience, and take the hard path when necessary in pursuit of their beliefs.

[Guest]

I like to think the "party" evaluates the man and not the color of his skin as alluded in the post above. There are those who can only see through racial glasses. Just like those who accuse us who are against Obama as wanting to get the "blackman" outta the WH.....I am sure there are some in each party that may hold to that accusation. Most of us, however, who are performance and promises kept oriented just want him out because he has not done and is not doing the job!!

btk

[Guest]

Of course, it is democrats painting the image of repubs as racist to secure the black and liberal votes. Basically it is residue from Johnson's War on Poverty from the mid 60's when they started raiding SS to pay for that and Vietnam.

[Guest]

Cain has great qualities for business and would do the US economy well, I just don't see Republicans nominating an African American. We have too many in our party that feel that is not a good idea for America. Just my opinion, please no flames.

What does "African American" have to do with anything?????? Cain does not even USE the term African American!!!

He said clearly on t.v. this weekend (to Huckabee) when asked why he does not refer to himself as "African American", he replied that his whole life experience is American, not African, and he refers to himself as a Black American.

Cain's race has nothing to do with his rise or fall in this campaign. Leave the race baiting OUT of this!

[Guest]

In this interview, Cain reaffirms that seniors living on Social Security income and dividend income would not be taxed on those. He also explains how the national sales tax does away with "embedded taxes" in goods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJKUIStSUos

[Guest]

Peggy Noonan opened her weekly column with a joke attributed to a TSA worker, “Ten years ago, Steve Jobs was alive, Bob Hope was alive, Johnny Cash was alive. Now we’re outta jobs, outta hope and outta cash.”

She opined that the reason Herman Cain appeals to so many people is that he is the only one advocating fundamental change. “…people have a sense that nothing’s going to get better unless something big is done, some fundamental change is made in our financial structures. It won’t be small-time rejiggering—a 5% cut in this tax, a 3% reduction in that program—that will get us out of this.” I believe this column contains a message that we all should give careful consideration.

http://peggynoonan.com/

[Guest]

Not to belabor any one point - as I would never do - but, Richie, you said regarding Cain
,
"He's a very religious man, and his faith is strong for life. Not everyone sees that as a detriment. I admire people who won't abandon their faith."

Abortion is not an option in the case of rape or incest? Can I get your personal belief on that - or drop the issue - or discuss it over an ice-cold Yeungling? Totally your choice.

[Guest]

Not to belabor any one point - as I would never do - but, Richie, you said regarding Cain
,
"He's a very religious man, and his faith is strong for life. Not everyone sees that as a detriment. I admire people who won't abandon their faith."

Abortion is not an option in the case of rape or incest? Can I get your personal belief on that - or drop the issue - or discuss it over an ice-cold Yeungling? Totally your choice.

Easy for me. Murder of a innocent life is worse than the acts you describe, in the eyes of any person of Christian faith, like Herman Cain.

[Guest]

999 again raises taxes on the middle and poor and lowers taxes for the rich. Just another effort to screw me.

[Guest]

Remember, that the 9-9-9 is only Cain's Phase 1.

No matter, like others have said, he will NOT get the nomination.

The 9-9-9 Plan would never make it through Congress anyhow.

However, IF Herman Cain did get to be the nominee, who would be the Vice-Presidential candidate - Papa John?

[Guest]

What does "African American" have to do with anything?????? Cain does not even USE the term African American!!!

He said clearly on t.v. this weekend (to Huckabee) when asked why he does not refer to himself as "African American", he replied that his whole life experience is American, not African, and he refers to himself as a Black American.

Cain's race has nothing to do with his rise or fall in this campaign. Leave the race baiting OUT of this!

Race baiting, I think not. I think Cain would be a fine candidate, just don't see the Right Wing voting him in. Save this post and I hope you can prove me wrong. If he becomes the REP nominee, I will vote for him and I will admit how wrong I was.

[Guest]

Easy for me. Murder of a innocent life is worse than the acts you describe, in the eyes of any person of Christian faith, like Herman Cain.

Hardly a worse choice. You may have, in theory, deceided that the 12 year old rape victim should be forced to have a child conceived in pain and fear. That 12 year old is NOT theoretical to me. Have a little girl in your office, scared, in pain, brutalized and afraid and tell her she has to give birth? That is a choice she and parents need to make, not you , not your beliefs, not your faith. It has to be THEIR choice. I would never support taking that choice out of the hands of the family.
And as I have said so many times before, if you support taking away choice, then you best be willing to pony up some more money to take care of them. I have met few prolife supporters who have a plan for what happens after that child is born (other then someone will adopt them) and even fewer who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

[Guest]

Hardly a worse choice. You may have, in theory, deceided that the 12 year old rape victim should be forced to have a child conceived in pain and fear. That 12 year old is NOT theoretical to me. Have a little girl in your office, scared, in pain, brutalized and afraid and tell her she has to give birth? That is a choice she and parents need to make, not you , not your beliefs, not your faith. It has to be THEIR choice. I would never support taking that choice out of the hands of the family.
And as I have said so many times before, if you support taking away choice, then you best be willing to pony up some more money to take care of them. I have met few prolife supporters who have a plan for what happens after that child is born (other then someone will adopt them) and even fewer who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

Well said. I am stunned how anyone can put their views of this issue between the patient and Doctor. Anyone that does is saying up yours GOD, I will take care of this as I know better than any other person on earth. Self Righteous jerks in my opinion. If they would read and follow the Christian teachings, they would leave this to each individual. Let GOD be the judge and not some Bourbon breath redneck in the local bar. Sorry, I am just very pasionate about the rights of women being stomped on by bible thumpers.

[Guest]

Well said. I am stunned how anyone can put their views of this issue between the patient and Doctor. Anyone that does is saying up yours GOD, I will take care of this as I know better than any other person on earth. Self Righteous jerks in my opinion. If they would read and follow the Christian teachings, they would leave this to each individual. Let GOD be the judge and not some Bourbon breath redneck in the local bar. Sorry, I am just very pasionate about the rights of women being stomped on by bible thumpers.

Here's a scenario:
You demolish buildings and I hire you to demolish one for me.
You come and ask me if there is anyone in the building first. I reply I don't know, there might be one person, but I doubt it. I tell you to just go ahead and demolish it...Are ya going to do it?
Now you are the doctor and I hire you to remove a fetus from my womb. But neither one of us is sure how close to being an actual human being this fetus is...Are ya going to do it?
It might be a choice between a woman and a doctor...or is it a choice between a woman, a doctor, and smaller human who can't voice his/her choice?

[Guest]

Here's a scenario:
You demolish buildings and I hire you to demolish one for me.
You come and ask me if there is anyone in the building first. I reply I don't know, there might be one person, but I doubt it. I tell you to just go ahead and demolish it...Are ya going to do it?
Now you are the doctor and I hire you to remove a fetus from my womb. But neither one of us is sure how close to being an actual human being this fetus is...Are ya going to do it?
It might be a choice between a woman and a doctor...or is it a choice between a woman, a doctor, and smaller human who can't voice his/her choice?

I understand what you say, but as a Christian, I will do what GOD commands me to do and I will let him be the judge. Only GOD knows this issue for sure and GOD has commanded us to judge not and we shall not be judged.

[Guest]

I understand what you say, but as a Christian, I will do what GOD commands me to do and I will let him be the judge. Only GOD knows this issue for sure and GOD has commanded us to judge not and we shall not be judged.
I haven't mentioned judging anyone...I am not judging anyone...I am talking about defending the under dog! With all due respect, please go back and read my post and tell me that you will demolish the building knowing that you don't know for sure if someone is in there...

[Guest]

I haven't mentioned judging anyone...I am not judging anyone...I am talking about defending the under dog! With all due respect, please go back and read my post and tell me that you will demolish the building knowing that you don't know for sure if someone is in there...

NO, I would not demolish the building under those circumstances. I respect your opinion, but I am firmly pro-choice and I believe GOD wants me to be that way. If we could just come up with a better way to stop unwanted pregnancy other than the ridicules abstinence. Nature would never allow that to work.

[Guest]

Hardly a worse choice. You may have, in theory, deceided that the 12 year old rape victim should be forced to have a child conceived in pain and fear. That 12 year old is NOT theoretical to me. Have a little girl in your office, scared, in pain, brutalized and afraid and tell her she has to give birth? That is a choice she and parents need to make, not you , not your beliefs, not your faith. It has to be THEIR choice. I would never support taking that choice out of the hands of the family.
And as I have said so many times before, if you support taking away choice, then you best be willing to pony up some more money to take care of them. I have met few prolife supporters who have a plan for what happens after that child is born (other then someone will adopt them) and even fewer who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

For me, nothing you've said excuses the murder of an innocent. If you believe yourself to be Christian, you must agree or you're a hypocrite to your faith.

I say this just to make a point. I don't demand that you agree with me, or act accordingly. Everyone must live according to their own conscience.

But if you believe, you must also believe the words of The Lord when he said he "knew you before you were born". He acknowledged that unborn life, can you do less?

[Guest]

Well said. I am stunned how anyone can put their views of this issue between the patient and Doctor. Anyone that does is saying up yours GOD, I will take care of this as I know better than any other person on earth. Self Righteous jerks in my opinion. If they would read and follow the Christian teachings, they would leave this to each individual. Let GOD be the judge and not some Bourbon breath redneck in the local bar. Sorry, I am just very pasionate about the rights of women being stomped on by bible thumpers.

No need to be disrespectful. No need to blaspheme. You know not your bible. I have a right to my point of view. I force no one to do as I believe. It's your own conscience you must live with. It's your own faith you must resolve.

[Guest]

For me, nothing you've said excuses the murder of an innocent. If you believe yourself to be Christian, you must agree or you're a hypocrite to your faith.

I say this just to make a point. I don't demand that you agree with me, or act accordingly. Everyone must live according to their own conscience.

But if you believe, you must also believe the words of The Lord when he said he "knew you before you were born". He acknowledged that unborn life, can you do less?

Would it be OK if the women was not a Christian. I personally think abortion is a terrible thing to do, but for other self righteous people to make that decision for you is just as terrible to me. I believe GOD will judge those that judge others and not in a good way. Pray for the unborn but keep out of others folks business.

[Guest]

Would it be OK if the women was not a Christian. I personally think abortion is a terrible thing to do, but for other self righteous people to make that decision for you is just as terrible to me. I believe GOD will judge those that judge others and not in a good way. Pray for the unborn but keep out of others folks business.

Where have I said I make that decision for anyone? You would begrudge me the simple right to my own opinion.

But if you believe in God, and you think God would approve of you murdering an innocent life, I think you should think some more.

[Guest]

Where have I said I make that decision for anyone? You would begrudge me the simple right to my own opinion.

But if you believe in God, and you think God would approve of you murdering an innocent life, I think you should think some more.

And if it is murder, then GOD will deal with it and not you or I. Your opinion is just like mine, I think it is wrong as anything on earth, but I believe the women has the right to make that decision on her own without our interference. Let Ro v Wade be the law of the land. Thank the S. Court for being smart enough to see it that way.

[Guest]

And if it is murder, then GOD will deal with it and not you or I. Your opinion is just like mine, I think it is wrong as anything on earth, but I believe the women has the right to make that decision on her own without our interference. Let Ro v Wade be the law of the land. Thank the S. Court for being smart enough to see it that way.

Just for the sake of argument; since you've just expressed your beliefs.

What other circumstances, in your view, justify the murder of innocents?

You don't really have to answer. I just would like you to think about it.

[Guest]

Just for the sake of argument; since you've just expressed your beliefs.

What other circumstances, in your view, justify the murder of innocents?

You don't really have to answer. I just would like you to think about it.

If at the time of conception the life begins, then the act of abortion would be murder as I understand murder. I personally feel that a life begins when the egg is joined by the sperm on moment one.

I also believe in Law and Law today says abortion is legal. Until that is changed, I support a womens right to decide.

[Guest]

Richie, you said it very clearly, "I say this just to make a point. I don't demand that you agree with me, or act accordingly. Everyone must live according to their own conscience."

From what you said - and I am not twisting words around - you are Pro-Choice. With that I mean, you personally do not believe in abortion but it is up to each woman to make up her own mind.

That is the kind of attitude that marks an intelligent person.

[Guest]

If at the time of conception the life begins, then the act of abortion would be murder as I understand murder. I personally feel that a life begins when the egg is joined by the sperm on moment one.

I also believe in Law and Law today says abortion is legal. Until that is changed, I support a womens right to decide.

So you support man's law over the tenants of God's law? Is your conscience eased by this?

[Guest]

So you support man's law over the tenants of God's law? Is your conscience eased by this?

What do you want Richie...a country governed by biblical law just like Sharia Law based on the Koran? Yes, I support man's law over God's law for a lot of reasons, one of which being that not everyone in this country is a christian. If we were judged by god's law, just about all of us would be quilty of something every single day of their lives. And that is because everyone finds ways around tenets of religion when it suits them...and to not recognize this is ourselves is pure repression.

[Guest]

Murder is against the law of this land. Murder means to take the life of another human being. If you believe that life begins at moment one when egg joins sperm, then to take that life would be murder.
The question isn't whether murder is against the law. The question is when does life begin. Since no one here can prove that life does not begin at conception...there might be someone in the building...how can we condone abortion? Just because the law is to take the life of the unborn, WHO WILL BE THE VOICE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF!

[Guest]

What do you want Richie...a country governed by biblical law just like Sharia Law based on the Koran? Yes, I support man's law over God's law for a lot of reasons, one of which being that not everyone in this country is a christian. If we were judged by god's law, just about all of us would be quilty of something every single day of their lives. And that is because everyone finds ways around tenets of religion when it suits them...and to not recognize this is ourselves is pure repression.

Yea, thats what I wanted to say but just not smart enough to get it out. Thanks LadyDOC

[Guest]

If I see a Guy A murdering another Guy B, and I have the opportunity to stop him... Should I try to save Guy A's life? And if I do, am I judging Guy B?

[Guest]

Murder is against the law of this land. Murder means to take the life of another human being. If you believe that life begins at moment one when egg joins sperm, then to take that life would be murder.
The question isn't whether murder is against the law. The question is when does life begin. Since no one here can prove that life does not begin at conception...there might be someone in the building...how can we condone abortion? Just because the law is to take the life of the unborn, WHO WILL BE THE VOICE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF!

It is murder to some and a compassionate act to others. It is just not up to us to be GOD or the judge and jury. Like I said, I would not support or have an abortion, but I would not tell my own wife she could not if she wanted to. We have so very few freedoms, that is one I don't have the right to take away from someone else.

[Guest]

If I see a Guy A murdering another Guy B, and I have the opportunity to stop him... Should I try to save Guy A's life? And if I do, am I judging Guy B?

Yes you are. You may be judging correctly, but without a lot more information you are judging.

[Guest]

It is murder to some and a compassionate act to others. It is just not up to us to be GOD or the judge and jury. Like I said, I would not support or have an abortion, but I would not tell my own wife she could not if she wanted to. We have so very few freedoms, that is one I don't have the right to take away from someone else.

ABSOLUTELY!!! I agree. No one has the right to take away the freedoms of the unborn either, freedom to continue to live. But why do the mother's rights supersede the child's right to live? Why have we given anyone the right to murder another?

[Guest]

Yes you are. You may be judging correctly, but without a lot more information you are judging.
So should I not judge? and walk on by?

[Guest]

TVII~ You confuse me...You agree that life begins at conception. You also are a professed defender of the underdog. Why will you not defend the life of the ultimate underdog...an unborn child, with no way to escape when the abortionist arrives; an unborn child who is snugly hidden under the heart of it's own mother; an unborn child who cannot speak out and beg for it's own life.
Just sayin...:cry:

[Guest]

TVII~ You confuse me...You agree that life begins at conception. You also are a professed defender of the underdog. Why will you not defend the life of the ultimate underdog...an unborn child, with no way to escape when the abortionist arrives; an unborn child who is snugly hidden under the heart of it's own mother; an unborn child who cannot speak out and beg for it's own life.
Just sayin...:cry:

WOW. I am speachless after this post. I will have to think about that for a few minutes. One thing I do is respond too quickly to often and you have my eye brows pinched together with this post.

[Guest]

Yes, Ladydoc is 100% right in her post. We certainly do not want the law of the land to be dictated by the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book of teaching.



Katz is right in her post that MURDER is against the law. However, an abortion is legal. Ergo: IT IS NOT MURDER.


Snce Herman Cain has stated that abortion is NOT an option for cases of rape or incest, he is too far right-wing for me and for most of American voters, too, I am sure.

[Guest]

Yes, Ladydoc is 100% right in her post. We certainly do not want the law of the land to be dictated by the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book of teaching.



Katz is right in her post that MURDER is against the law. However, an abortion is legal. Ergo: IT IS NOT MURDER.


Snce Herman Cain has stated that abortion is NOT an option for cases of rape or incest, he is too far right-wing for me and for most of American voters, too, I am sure.
So, with your reason, it is perfectly all right to kill millions of female babies because it is the law in China. People in China kill their babies if they are female because they are allowed one child.

So the law is right in China. Murder is OK. God's law of Thou shall not Kill is wrong? Right on Buggie.

[Guest]

Yes, Ladydoc is 100% right in her post. We certainly do not want the law of the land to be dictated by the Bible or the Koran or any other holy book of teaching.



Katz is right in her post that MURDER is against the law. However, an abortion is legal. Ergo: IT IS NOT MURDER.

Snce Herman Cain has stated that abortion is NOT an option for cases of rape or incest, he is too far right-wing for me and for most of American voters, too, I am sure.

Murder is by definition the taking of a life, stopping a life, ending a life.
Life is defined as the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

An egg and sperm meet and the result is a new cell with a totally distinct and different set of chromosomes. This cell begins to grow, divide and multiply at an incredible speed. The condition of this new organism fits the definition of life.

Just because some judges chose to make it legal to end the life of the unborn organism, does not conclude that abortion is not murder. It only concludes that the court has made a tragic mistake in their ruling.

[Guest]

So, with your reason, it is perfectly all right to kill millions of female babies because it is the law in China. People in China kill their babies if they are female because they are allowed on child.

So the law is right in China. Murder is OK. God's law of Thou shall not Kill is wrong? Right on Buggie.

:BigApplause:

[Guest]

What the heck does that have to do with rape and incest victims having the right to an abortion? We are talking about Herman Cain. Is he going to outlaw killing of babies in China, too? I have not read that plank of his platform.

Did you get too many four putts today and are just out of sorts? Hopefully, you can play tomorrow if it does not rain too hard. Hope you have a good evening.

[Guest]

What the heck does that have to do with rape and incest victims having the right to an abortion? We are talking about Herman Cain. Is he going to outlaw killing of babies in China, too? I have not read that plank of his platform.

Did you get too many four putts today and are just out of sorts? Hopefully, you can play tomorrow if it does not rain too hard. Hope you have a good evening.

I was just showing the major fault of your weak argument. You said it is not murder if the law said it isn't. The law in China forces parents to murder millions of baby girls. Murder is described by law. A country's law?

Germany made it a law to murder Jews. Was that OK because the law of the land said it is OK to murder. Your logic is false and disturbing.

[Guest]

What the heck does that have to do with rape and incest victims having the right to an abortion? We are talking about Herman Cain. Is he going to outlaw killing of babies in China, too? I have not read that plank of his platform.

Did you get too many four putts today and are just out of sorts? Hopefully, you can play tomorrow if it does not rain too hard. Hope you have a good evening.
As you said...MURDER is against the law. However, an abortion is legal. Ergo: IT IS NOT MURDER. =Since it is legal to kill female children in China, Ergo: IT IS NOT MURDER.
Do you agree that killing female children is not murder?

[Guest]

As you said...MURDER is against the law. However, an abortion is legal. Ergo: IT IS NOT MURDER. =Since it is legal to kill female children in China, Ergo: IT IS NOT MURDER.
Do you agree that killing female children is not murder?

Gosh. I like you.:0000000000luvmyhors

[Guest]

Gosh. I like you.:0000000000luvmyhors

LOL...:highfive:

[Guest]

It is not legal to kill baby girls in China. Please show me the current Chinese law stating it is legal to kill baby girls. You are both wrong on this one.

Once again, this posting is about permitting abortion in cases of rape or incest. Herman Cain said he was against abortion in cases of rape or incest. Let's stay on track.

You both have stated your opposition to abortion. Everyone understands that.

Unless you just want to have the last word and try to twist my words as much as you can, leave it alone and get a good night's sleep.

[Guest]

It is not legal to kill baby girls in China. Please show me the current Chinese law stating it is legal to kill baby girls. You are both wrong on this one.

Once again, this posting is about permitting abortion in cases of rape or incest. Herman Cain said he was against abortion in cases of rape or incest. Let's stay on track.

You both have stated your opposition to abortion. Everyone understands that.

Unless you just want to have the last word and try to twist my words as much as you can, leave it alone and get a good night's sleep.

It was legal to kill Jews in Germany ERGO: IT WAS NOT MURDER. Do you agree?

[Guest]

It is not legal to kill baby girls in China. Please show me the current Chinese law stating it is legal to kill baby girls. You are both wrong on this one.

It is illegal to have more then one child in China, so the government turns a blind eye when the parents kill the baby. Chinese value male child because he can work harder and can carry family name. Sometimes parents keep killing their babies until they finally get a boy. So, the government is an assessor y to murder. The government actually encourages it.

But big government people like liberals think that is OK? Cause liberal think the government is always right and the bigger government gets-makes liberals happy.

[Guest]

It was legal to kill Jews in Germany ERGO: IT WAS NOT MURDER. Do you agree?

Of course not. The government says it wasn't against the law. I think your wasting your time as liberals think government is their form of God.

[Guest]

Also in China, there is a one child policy. After the first child, a woman who is pregnant is given a forced abortion and sterilization to prevent future "accidents" from occuring.

[Guest]

Also in China, there is a one child policy. After the first child, a woman who is pregnant is given a forced abortion and sterilization to prevent future "accidents" from occuring.

I didn't know that. But I guess that is why they try to keep pregnancies secret. I read about this years back, I'll have to do more research.

[Guest]

What do you want Richie...a country governed by biblical law just like Sharia Law based on the Koran? Yes, I support man's law over God's law for a lot of reasons, one of which being that not everyone in this country is a christian. If we were judged by god's law, just about all of us would be quilty of something every single day of their lives. And that is because everyone finds ways around tenets of religion when it suits them...and to not recognize this is ourselves is pure repression.

I never advocated anything in the application of law. My questions were only of a spiritual nature to examine personal faith in conjunction with pro-abortion convictions.

I only asked The Villager II who states pro-life beliefs in union with pro-abortion beliefs if he can justify that in relation to his proclaimed faith.

You, Ladydoc, are free to advocate the killing of babies if you wish. I can't stand in your way.

[Guest]

In this interview, Cain reaffirms that seniors living on Social Security income and dividend income would not be taxed on those. He also explains how the national sales tax does away with "embedded taxes" in goods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJKUIStSUos

The original topic regarding Herman Cain, has now morphed into something else that which should probably be another discussion thread.

Thanks for the video. For those who actually watched and listened to it, it pretty much answered everything that was discussed as problems with the 999 plan.

[Guest]

The original topic regarding Herman Cain, has now morphed into something else that which should probably be another discussion thread.

Thanks for the video. For those who actually watched and listened to it, it pretty much answered everything that was discussed as problems with the 999 plan.

Well, to be fair, Buggyone presented the news story of Cain's pro-life views and that's how this conversation drifted and morphed. It's only natural.

[Guest]

I can argue both sides of this - but this thread shows exactly how volatile a topic abortion is.

If life begins at conception - and all life is precious and to be saved at all costs - have we thought through the consequences of this? Are we going to investigate miscarriages as possible cases of negligent homicide? If someone pushes through a law stating that a fetus has rights - will we also prosecute that fetus if it turns out that it was a surviving twin (just reading about how many babies might actually be a surviving twin who consumed/absorbed the failed twin)?

God's law? Like the law that says it's ok to kill someone of another faith, sell your family into slavery or exterminate a rival tribe - all found in the Bible? Be *very* careful with what you say. Remember - that Bible also said "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - as in PAY YOUR TAXES.. And let's remember Jesus' charity towards the poor and sick - kind of against what a lot of conservatives say these days.

Yes, I've read the Bible - and there are a lot of good stories in there. There's a lot one can learn and many good examples. But let's not forget that the Bible has been used to justify atrocities for a couple of millenia now.

[Guest]

I can argue both sides of this - but this thread shows exactly how volatile a topic abortion is.

If life begins at conception - and all life is precious and to be saved at all costs - have we thought through the consequences of this? Are we going to investigate miscarriages as possible cases of negligent homicide? If someone pushes through a law stating that a fetus has rights - will we also prosecute that fetus if it turns out that it was a surviving twin (just reading about how many babies might actually be a surviving twin who consumed/absorbed the failed twin)?

God's law? Like the law that says it's ok to kill someone of another faith, sell your family into slavery or exterminate a rival tribe - all found in the Bible? Be *very* careful with what you say. Remember - that Bible also said "rend unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - as in PAY YOUR TAXES.. And let's remember Jesus' charity towards the poor and sick - kind of against what a lot of conservatives say these days.

Yes, I've read the Bible - and there are a lot of good stories in there. There's a lot one can learn and many good examples. But let's not forget that the Bible has been used to justify atrocities for a couple of millenia now.

The issue is a bit complicated enough without your fanciful queries and ludicrous in-womb scenarios in relation to law. Your representation of the lessons of the Bible are a little spurious.

Why do people have trouble examining their view of life and the recognition of their own purported faith without clouding the issue so that all semblance of the point of the discussion is lost.

[Guest]

DPlong's examples are kind of far-fetched but lead to some questions you have to ask yourself. How about if YOUR 12 year old daughter was raped by a hulking, slobbering idiot with an IQ of 69 and she became pregnant? Would YOU force your own daughter to go through 9 months of pregnancy and give birth to that spawn? Would you then raise that unwanted baby as your own grandchild and be financially responsible for it for life?

Of course, that is the most repulsive example possible and hopefully it will never happen to anyone. However, under the extreme idea set forth by Cain, it would be his plan.

However, we do not have this to worry about. Cain will not be the GOP candidate. The 9-9-9 plan will not happen. The "no abortion at all" will not happen. 'Nuff said on this topic.

[Guest]

Cain or any candidate having a personal belief that no abortion should be allowed in any case, or having a tax system replacement plan, does not translate to "LAW" by executive order his first day in office.

We have a system of checks and balances, with the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government.....remember?

And as for Cain's 9-9-9 plan for tax system replacement and placing a giant IV infusion of CASH into this ailing economy, to FUND JOBS immediately, it is an IDEA, and every system begins with an idea. This happens to be an idea that many people are getting engaged in talking about and brainstorming ways to make it work better for certain income groups and economic PRODUCERS.

As it is, economic PRODUCERS--namely small businessmen-employers--are being punished by the tax code! Cain's idea can be tailored, without the thousands of loopholes that feed the current corruption between business and legislators.

[Guest]

DPlong's examples are kind of far-fetched but lead to some questions you have to ask yourself. How about if YOUR 12 year old daughter was raped by a hulking, slobbering idiot with an IQ of 69 and she became pregnant? Would YOU force your own daughter to go through 9 months of pregnancy and give birth to that spawn? Would you then raise that unwanted baby as your own grandchild and be financially responsible for it for life?

Of course, that is the most repulsive example possible and hopefully it will never happen to anyone. However, under the extreme idea set forth by Cain, it would be his plan.

However, we do not have this to worry about. Cain will not be the GOP candidate. The 9-9-9 plan will not happen. The "no abortion at all" will not happen. 'Nuff said on this topic.

Just for context, this argument about rape victims is something that is always used by those who support killing of children, but in fact, pregnancy from rape is EXTREMELY RARE..EXTREMELY. Secondly, this argument is really a TACTIC. In one study, of the very few pregnancies caused by rape, less than 10% chose abortion, and most studies that ask WHY the abortion find that that large, vast majority are SOCIAL issues and not related to rape, incest or anything such.

[Guest]

DPlong's examples are kind of far-fetched but lead to some questions you have to ask yourself. How about if YOUR 12 year old daughter was raped by a hulking, slobbering idiot with an IQ of 69 and she became pregnant? Would YOU force your own daughter to go through 9 months of pregnancy and give birth to that spawn? Would you then raise that unwanted baby as your own grandchild and be financially responsible for it for life?

Of course, that is the most repulsive example possible and hopefully it will never happen to anyone. However, under the extreme idea set forth by Cain, it would be his plan.

However, we do not have this to worry about. Cain will not be the GOP candidate. The 9-9-9 plan will not happen. The "no abortion at all" will not happen. 'Nuff said on this topic.

You made my answer simple. Would I "force"? No, how could I? Would I be happy that an innocent life was snuffed because of the sins of his father? No, I would not. Everything else is irrelevant.

I'm not adding this thought to just your horrible scenario that all pro-abortionists bring up in these discussions; but have you ever heard of a thing called adoption?

[Guest]

Good posting, Richie. I was not aiming that question at you personally but am glad you answered. 'Nuff said on this distastful subject for me.

[Guest]

Murder is by definition the taking of a life, stopping a life, ending a life.
Life is defined as the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

An egg and sperm meet and the result is a new cell with a totally distinct and different set of chromosomes. This cell begins to grow, divide and multiply at an incredible speed. The condition of this new organism fits the definition of life.

Just because some judges chose to make it legal to end the life of the unborn organism, does not conclude that abortion is not murder. It only concludes that the court has made a tragic mistake in their ruling.


Not too muddy the water too much, but given this definition of murder, where do you stand on capital punishment ???

[Guest]

Cain or any candidate having a personal belief that no abortion should be allowed in any case, or having a tax system replacement plan, does not translate to "LAW" by executive order his first day in office.

We have a system of checks and balances, with the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government.....remember?

And as for Cain's 9-9-9 plan for tax system replacement and placing a giant IV infusion of CASH into this ailing economy, to FUND JOBS immediately, it is an IDEA, and every system begins with an idea. This happens to be an idea that many people are getting engaged in talking about and brainstorming ways to make it work better for certain income groups and economic PRODUCERS.

As it is, economic PRODUCERS--namely small businessmen-employers--are being punished by the tax code! Cain's idea can be tailored, without the thousands of loopholes that feed the current corruption between business and legislators.

Oh my, a thoughtful, educated and cogent analysis of the issues we've been discussing here. What a breath of fresh air.

Nice post Ilovetv. It's rare to find posts that succinctly address the discussions at hand. It's a rare talent.

:BigApplause:

[Guest]

Not too muddy the water too much, but given this definition of murder, where do you stand on capital punishment ???

If I may answer; capital punishment, by definition, is not the taking of an "innocent life". Apples and oranges.

[Guest]

If I may answer; capital punishment, by definition, is not the taking of an "innocent life". Apples and oranges.

Well, maybe so, but that isn't what Katz's definition says... Taking a life is taking a life.

[Guest]

I like to think the "party" evaluates the man and not the color of his skin as alluded in the post above. There are those who can only see through racial glasses. Just like those who accuse us who are against Obama as wanting to get the "blackman" outta the WH.....I am sure there are some in each party that may hold to that accusation. Most of us, however, who are performance and promises kept oriented just want him out because he has not done and is not doing the job!!

btk

In response to a Oct 4th Wall Street article entitled "What Happened to Post Racial America both Wayne Henderson of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Dennis Parker argue that affirmative action programs need to continue. This is despite, as they acknowledge, that many minorities find themselves as CEO's in major corporation, government,infact some 50% of government workers are minorities sports, etc. As long as miniorties or those organizations represented them continue with this faux class/race warfafre we will never get past the racial issue

[Guest]

This thread is about Cain's 9-9-9 plan. It will never get off the ground as others have said because politicians need money. Both Democrats and Republicans have been playing this game of we need to reduce spending. Well this chart appeared in todays's Wall Street Journal:

Year Recipts Outlays Deficits Deficit as a share
of GDP

2007 $2,568 $2,729 $161 1.2%
2008 2,524 2,983 459 3.2
2009 2,104 3,520 1,416 10.0
2010 2,162 3,456 1,294 8.9
2011 2,303 3,600 1,298 8.6

Billions in $
Congressional BudgetOffice

How can obsessive spending pols ever agree to anything that doesn't guarantee them broad access to taxpayers money along with the ability to contiue to raise the rates.

[Guest]

Some say we have the first affirmative action President in the White House. I do not mean that in a harsh way, but it has been argued the Obama and his wife were given priorities in life. Since his school records have been sealed or hiding from public scrutiny, we may never know.

Anyways, affirmative action is long past it's usefulness. What happened to the colorblind society?

[Guest]

I never advocated anything in the application of law. My questions were only of a spiritual nature to examine personal faith in conjunction with pro-abortion convictions.

I only asked The Villager II who states pro-life beliefs in union with pro-abortion beliefs if he can justify that in relation to his proclaimed faith.

You, Ladydoc, are free to advocate the killing of babies if you wish. I can't stand in your way.

You really like to twist words to fit your notions, don't you? Is there no statement, opinion, fact or idea that you can not verbally manipulate to fit your purposes to make you look, at least to yourself, right?

[Guest]

You really like to twist words to fit your notions, don't you? Is there no statement, opinion, fact or idea that you can not verbally manipulate to fit your purposes to make you look, at least to yourself, right?

What did I twist? Did you not say what you meant about abortion? I definitely said what I meant.

[Guest]

Richie: I absolutely agree that I had some stuff that sounded far-fetched by today's standards. But when people (not necessarily you) start talking about wanting new laws, you have to look at those extremes so that the law can handle them when they inevitable DO arise.

It's kind of like how we have laws against killing someone - but if we do it in *self-defense*, the law allows that.

I never would have believe the "12 year old rape victim" story years ago - until my mother told me how her boss (a veterinarian - DVM) was talking to an MD friend of his who had to deal with more than one pregnant 10-year-old. This was sending sollective shudders down the spines of a LOT of people in rural Indiana as word spread.

So, yes, I'll bring up the extreme cases because it's better to do it ahead of time than to have to deal with 'unforseen circumstances' later on.

[Guest]

I'll bring up the extreme cases because it's better to do it ahead of time than to have to deal with 'unforseen circumstances' later on.

The most extreme "solution to your extremist circumstances is the destruction (murder) of the life innocent of all the circumstances.

That is the way many see it; those of true Christian faith.

[Guest]

I get a Personal Liberty Alerts newsletter every day and this is what they had to say about Cain’s 9-9-9:

The article says that while Cain’s claim that he will throw out the current tax plan may be true, his ability to replace it with 9-9-9 would take a long time, and the result would be only temporary. The research indicates such because 9-9-9 is the second of three parts involved in the Cain tax goal. The first step would cut individual and corporate tax rates to a top 25 percent rate, and the last step is actually the replacement of any current tax structure — even 9-9-9 — with a national sales tax or Fair Tax.

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/herman-cain-tax-plan-dubious-or-dream-for-conservatives/?eiid=&rmid=2011_10_17_PLA_[P11550062]&rrid=387054256

[Guest]

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Brookings institute and the Urban Institute, both viewed as left center reports that Cain's 9-9-9 plan concludes that more than 90% of people earning $37,090 (the bottom 40%) would see a tax increase. And that those earning less than $17,900 (bottom 20%) would pay $1854 more in taxes by contrast the top 20% with incomes greater than $111,000 would set their taxes cut by $14,400

This has strengthened fiscal conervatives view of Cain's plan because close to half of U.S. taxpayers, mostly lower and middle incomes households do not pay taxes under the current tax plan. The top 20% would bear 51% of the burden under the Cain plan down 17% while the bottom 20% would bear 3.4% up from 1%

(WSJ "Study Puts Cain's Tax Plan Under Microscope" pageA5)

I believe that as it stands now retirees will be faced with a double taxation because they will be spending income that has already been taxed and/or will be taxed when withdrawn from IRA's, etc. I am also believe with the passage of the time the consumption tax will continue to rise well into double digits.
But even now taxpayers will be forced to pay a state tax plus the federal consumption tax in florida that would be 16%.

Because of this and numerous other reasons this lan will never see the light of day

[Guest]

What did I twist? Did you not say what you meant about abortion? I definitely said what I meant.

I absolutely meant what I said about abortion...that it is a woman's right to choose. I never said I advocated abortion; I said I support the right of choice, whatever that choice is.

[Guest]

I absolutely meant what I said about abortion...that it is a woman's right to choose. I never said I advocated abortion; I said I support the right of choice, whatever that choice is.

"advocate" is a synonym for "support". Check your Merriam-Webster if you don't believe me.

I do understand why you're trying to put a little distance between what it is you support, and what it actually is.

[Guest]

I support the unborn person's right to choose!

[Guest]

I support the unborn person's right to choose!

Me too. Your either for abortion or against. "Choice" is a cop-out.

[Guest]

Richie: I absolutely agree that I had some stuff that sounded far-fetched by today's standards. But when people (not necessarily you) start talking about wanting new laws, you have to look at those extremes so that the law can handle them when they inevitable DO arise.

It's kind of like how we have laws against killing someone - but if we do it in *self-defense*, the law allows that.

I never would have believe the "12 year old rape victim" story years ago - until my mother told me how her boss (a veterinarian - DVM) was talking to an MD friend of his who had to deal with more than one pregnant 10-year-old. This was sending sollective shudders down the spines of a LOT of people in rural Indiana as word spread.

So, yes, I'll bring up the extreme cases because it's better to do it ahead of time than to have to deal with 'unforseen circumstances' later on.

Ever heard of the game-"Telephone"?

[Guest]

"advocate" is a synonym for "support". Check your Merriam-Webster if you don't believe me.

I do understand why you're trying to put a little distance between what it is you support, and what it actually is.

You did it again...twisted my words and my intent. You are a master at that. I am NOT distancing myself from what I have said...I have been entirely consistent. You just like saying whatever you want to say to demean others to make yourself appear always right. Got a newsflash for you.. you are not right a LOT of the time. You are a legend in your own mind. Once again, and I will make this as simple as possible: I support a woman's right of choice...if it is abortion...I support that..if it is giving birth...I support that. I will always support a woman's right to choose. Do you understand now?

[Guest]

You did it again...twisted my words and my intent. You are a master at that. I am NOT distancing myself from what I have said...I have been entirely consistent. You just like saying whatever you want to say to demean others to make yourself appear always right. Got a newsflash for you.. you are not right a LOT of the time. You are a legend in your own mind. Once again, and I will make this as simple as possible: I support a woman's right of choice...if it is abortion...I support that..if it is giving birth...I support that. I will always support a woman's right to choose. Do you understand now?

Yes, you support abortion. You support the killing of babies. You are very clear.

[Guest]

WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES? How is one person's choice, based on their economic or social condition in life WORTH MORE than another person's chance to LIVE!
Woman can have all the rights over their own body that they want. Have at it. The unborn child is not part of the mother's body!!!!!!!!! What is so hard to understand about that?
If you cannot prove when the unborn isn't a human, and you don't believe I can prove that the unborn is human...WHY DO WE NOT ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION?
If you aren't sure whether someone is in the building or not, why would you demolish it?
WHAT AM I MISSING!?!?

[Guest]

Yes, you support abortion. You support the killing of babies. You are very clear.

What you said.

[Guest]

Ladydoc is a very educated person and is on the side of the page I am on. Richie is a very decent guy who I have gotten to know and is passionate about his views on Pro-Choice. Richie loves to argue a point and sometimes it seems it just for the point of arguement - but that is how some New Jersyites are from being in that state.

We have to excuse Katz and Village Golfer for...- well, we just have to excuse them.

Richie has stated his viewpoints from a religious point and Ladydoc has stated hers from a humanistic viewpoint. Both are passionate in their beliefs but the world has to go with Ladydoc. It is up to a woman to decide for herself and NOT up to politicians.

End of discussion.

[Guest]

Ladydoc is a very educated person and is on the side of the page I am on. Richie is a very decent guy who I have gotten to know and is passionate about his views on Pro-Choice. Richie loves to argue a point and sometimes it seems it just for the point of arguement - but that is how some New Jersyites are from being in that state.

We have to excuse Katz and Village Golfer for...- well, we just have to excuse them.

Richie has stated his viewpoints from a religious point and Ladydoc has stated hers from a humanistic viewpoint. Both are passionate in their beliefs but the world has to go with Ladydoc. It is up to a woman to decide for herself and NOT up to politicians.

End of discussion.

You forgot to tell us Buggyone's credentials...

[Guest]

You obviously do read them or you would not have responded to this one. As I said, you are excused from reasonable discussions here. Just say, "Good night, Gracie" and have a good evening. Hope your day tomorrow is fine.

Why are you addressing the posters instead of the subject. Katz is very intelligent and your credentials to put her down are what? Please stop using the personal tactics and try to contribute. Please.

[Guest]

We request that discussions are not directed at users.

[Guest]

Admin:

I apologize for the infraction.

[Guest]

Ladydoc is a very educated person and is on the side of the page I am on. Richie is a very decent guy who I have gotten to know and is passionate about his views on Pro-Choice. Richie loves to argue a point and sometimes it seems it just for the point of arguement - but that is how some New Jersyites are from being in that state.

We have to excuse Katz and Village Golfer for...- well, we just have to excuse them.

Richie has stated his viewpoints from a religious point and Ladydoc has stated hers from a humanistic viewpoint. Both are passionate in their beliefs but the world has to go with Ladydoc. It is up to a woman to decide for herself and NOT up to politicians.

End of discussion.

End of Discussion? You sound pretty definite about that, but I object to your presumption.

My point of view is also scientific as well as religious. I also think it is scientifically apparent that the baby in the womb is a live human being. I say that from MY "humanist" viewpoint.

Being Christian myself, I've been focusing in illustrating the religious, to attempt to get Christians who are pro-choice to try to visualize themselves as also being pro-murder in the eyes of their avowed faith. No "Christian" has, in fact, responded to this part of my discussion directly. Believe me, I know why, and they know who else also knows why.

You say politicians, but you really mean legislators. It is legislators who make the laws in this society. Except of course in the case of "abortion rights" where the law was improperly made by activist judges, when The Supreme Court invented the right to privacy and applied it to the case of Roe v. Wade.

[Guest]

The most extreme "solution to your extremist circumstances is the destruction (murder) of the life innocent of all the circumstances.

That is the way many see it; those of true Christian faith.

I understand that. And without getting into the volatile details, there's a long debate about when and how to protect "life" whenever it's "deemed" to have (for lack of a better term) "full governmental protection".

That's one reason I'm more in favor of programs designed to stop unwanted pregnancies before they happen. As I've often said, abortion is the symptom, not the disease. Cure the disease and the symptom goes away.

[Guest]

I understand that. And without getting into the volatile details, there's a long debate about when and how to protect "life" whenever it's "deemed" to have (for lack of a better term) "full governmental protection".

That's one reason I'm more in favor of programs designed to stop unwanted pregnancies before they happen. As I've often said, abortion is the symptom, not the disease. Cure the disease and the symptom goes away.

djplong~ Play along for a few minutes...Say that you demolish buildings and I hire you to demolish one for me. You arrive to demolish it but ask me is there is anyone in that building. I say there might be one person, but I doubt it. I then tell you to just go ahead and do it. Are ya gonna do it?

[Guest]

Straw man argument. Many false preconceptions where the metaphor falls apart.

Nobody has an abortion without knowing they're pregnant (barring something really out of the ordinary like an accident victim in a coma who can't sustain a pregnancy or something like that)

In your metaphor, if you ask me to demolish the building, I'll be checking for myself to see if anyone's in there.

Your argument boils down to "when does life begin", but it's more complex than that. What it REALLY boils down to is "When does constitutionally-protected life begin?"

If you're passing civil laws to control that, then it's all about the Constitution and the law books. If you're talking religion, then that's between you and whichever deity you believe in. And, no, I'm not ignoring the influence that religion has had on civil law. That's the very basis of many of the arguments that go back and forth on this subject.

I don't mean to be sarcastic with this, so I apologize if it sounds that way. But the religious argument is based on a myth that nobody can prove - or, for that matter, disprove in many cases.

Our laws don't stop any religious organization from offering their services to promote adoption - and that's a Good Thing. But sometimes the numbers are overwhelming. The last time I checked, there were over 5,000 kids in the greater Boston area who needed parents. In New York, it was far worse with almost 50,000 (I grant you, this was several years ago). But those were mostly minority kids. The wait time for 'perfect white babies' stretches for years in some places. Heck, some countries had to put curbs on people coming from the US to adopt their orphans to slow it down.

Respectfully, I can't play your game. Your game is rigged for a particular outcome. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic tone - you're trying to use a metaphor to illustrate your side of the debate. I can respect that, and I hope you take this response in the manner I intended.

[Guest]

We request that discussions are not directed at users.

Kind of defeats the dialog of discussion if that becomes the rules.

If it's just nasty stuff I kind of can see that. But not directing a discussion towards a user is not a discussion at all.

[Guest]

Kind of defeats the dialog of discussion if that becomes the rules.

If it's just nasty stuff I kind of can see that. But not directing a discussion towards a user is not a discussion at all.

I think Admin means that some people direct the conversation personally to someone without mentioning the subject. There are many posts that try to discredit, harass, belittle, make joke of another poster without discussing the subject matter.

[Guest]

Straw man argument. Many false preconceptions where the metaphor falls apart.

Nobody has an abortion without knowing they're pregnant (barring something really out of the ordinary like an accident victim in a coma who can't sustain a pregnancy or something like that)

In your metaphor, if you ask me to demolish the building, I'll be checking for myself to see if anyone's in there.

Your argument boils down to "when does life begin", but it's more complex than that. What it REALLY boils down to is "When does constitutionally-protected life begin?"

If you're passing civil laws to control that, then it's all about the Constitution and the law books. If you're talking religion, then that's between you and whichever deity you believe in. And, no, I'm not ignoring the influence that religion has had on civil law. That's the very basis of many of the arguments that go back and forth on this subject.

I don't mean to be sarcastic with this, so I apologize if it sounds that way. But the religious argument is based on a myth that nobody can prove - or, for that matter, disprove in many cases.

Our laws don't stop any religious organization from offering their services to promote adoption - and that's a Good Thing. But sometimes the numbers are overwhelming. The last time I checked, there were over 5,000 kids in the greater Boston area who needed parents. In New York, it was far worse with almost 50,000 (I grant you, this was several years ago). But those were mostly minority kids. The wait time for 'perfect white babies' stretches for years in some places. Heck, some countries had to put curbs on people coming from the US to adopt their orphans to slow it down.

Respectfully, I can't play your game. Your game is rigged for a particular outcome. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic tone - you're trying to use a metaphor to illustrate your side of the debate. I can respect that, and I hope you take this response in the manner I intended.


I don't base my opinion on religion. You only assume that because you know me to be a Chrisitan. On this forum, I have addressed the issue of abortion from the scientific standpoint 99.9% of the time. I was a scientist long before a Christian...I base my opinion on scientific fact and definition of life. But that is OK. No offense taken.

[Guest]

Abortion is a tough, highly contested issue.

Here's a story I saw today that will break your heart... It's easy to take a stand with the words we type here, but here's an example of living with your convictions.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44973215/ns/today-today_health/#.TqBEY3GYlVc

[Guest]

Straw man argument. Many false preconceptions where the metaphor falls apart.

Nobody has an abortion without knowing they're pregnant (barring something really out of the ordinary like an accident victim in a coma who can't sustain a pregnancy or something like that)

In your metaphor, if you ask me to demolish the building, I'll be checking for myself to see if anyone's in there.

Your argument boils down to "when does life begin", but it's more complex than that. What it REALLY boils down to is "When does constitutionally-protected life begin?"

If you're passing civil laws to control that, then it's all about the Constitution and the law books. If you're talking religion, then that's between you and whichever deity you believe in. And, no, I'm not ignoring the influence that religion has had on civil law. That's the very basis of many of the arguments that go back and forth on this subject.

I don't mean to be sarcastic with this, so I apologize if it sounds that way. But the religious argument is based on a myth that nobody can prove - or, for that matter, disprove in many cases.

Our laws don't stop any religious organization from offering their services to promote adoption - and that's a Good Thing. But sometimes the numbers are overwhelming. The last time I checked, there were over 5,000 kids in the greater Boston area who needed parents. In New York, it was far worse with almost 50,000 (I grant you, this was several years ago). But those were mostly minority kids. The wait time for 'perfect white babies' stretches for years in some places. Heck, some countries had to put curbs on people coming from the US to adopt their orphans to slow it down.

Respectfully, I can't play your game. Your game is rigged for a particular outcome. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic tone - you're trying to use a metaphor to illustrate your side of the debate. I can respect that, and I hope you take this response in the manner I intended.

WOW- I am impressed. You just articulated perfectly some things I was trying to say. You did it much better then I could. Thanks!

[Guest]

WOW- I am impressed. You just articulated perfectly some things I was trying to say. You did it much better then I could. Thanks!

He has been doing that with class and clarity for years on this site and never partisan.

:super:

[Guest]

He has been doing that with class and clarity for years on this site and never partisan.

:super:

I beg to differ. We all have our prejudices.

[Guest]

Your argument boils down to "when does life begin", but it's more complex than that. What it REALLY boils down to is "When does constitutionally-protected life begin?"

I don't mean to be sarcastic with this, so I apologize if it sounds that way. But the religious argument is based on a myth that nobody can prove - or, for that matter, disprove in many cases.

You're kidding right? You're leaving it to a legislator to tell you when a life begins?; or to put it another way, when you have the right to your life?
This is a very scary argument, in my view.

I'm the one who's been addressing religion in this discussion. I think you've misunderstood the basis of my argument. I am addressing those who already consider themselves to be "children of God" and who profess to be Christian by accepting Christ as their savior.

Those who fit that description and who also support or advocate a "women's right to choose", or in other words a women's right to kill the life growing inside of her, have to accept the hypocrisy of this in light of their "faith" which prohibits this act under penalty of eternal damnation.

If religion is a "myth" to you, then I am not addressing this to you.

[Guest]

Richie,

You had agreed in an earlier posting that you were Pro-Choice. You had stated that you would not force a young girl to have a child. You stated it is a woman's choice and it is between her and God. That is exactly right. Keep politicians and legislation out of the mix. You got it completely right.

[Guest]

Richie,

You had agreed in an earlier posting that you were Pro-Choice. You had stated that you would not force a young girl to have a child. You stated it is a woman's choice and it is between her and God. That is exactly right. Keep politicians and legislation out of the mix. You got it completely right.

Nope, I did not. I said I "couldn't stop her". I never, ever said the next phrase you wrote. You've misinterpreted it.

I would never in any context be in favor of the killing of the most innocent of humanity. I only acquiesce because for now I live in "man's world", and man in his imperfection has gone down this dark road, and I am but one.

But I speak while I may, and organize when I can, and try to change minds if I can.

[Guest]

I don't base my opinion on religion. You only assume that because you know me to be a Chrisitan. On this forum, I have addressed the issue of abortion from the scientific standpoint 99.9% of the time. I was a scientist long before a Christian...I base my opinion on scientific fact and definition of life. But that is OK. No offense taken.

I hate to say it, but there's life and there's "life".

I wouldn't argue for a moment that all the ingredients are there from the moment of conception for a unique individual. THat's pure science - although even then you can split hairs since it takes some time for the chromosomes to mix.

But the abortion argument is usually constructed over laws - when to allow or ban then, what circumstances, etc. And that's where I was getting at. At what point do the laws step in...

[Guest]

I hate to say it, but there's life and there's "life".I wouldn't argue for a moment that all the ingredients are there from the moment of conception for a unique individual. THat's pure science - although even then you can split hairs since it takes some time for the chromosomes to mix.

But the abortion argument is usually constructed over laws - when to allow or ban then, what circumstances, etc. And that's where I was getting at. At what point do the laws step in...


What is the difference between life and "life"?????? Assuming your statement is correct and there is a difference, who has the right to decide one is more valuable than the other?

[Guest]

You're kidding right? You're leaving it to a legislator to tell you when a life begins?; or to put it another way, when you have the right to your life?
This is a very scary argument, in my view.

I'm the one who's been addressing religion in this discussion. I think you've misunderstood the basis of my argument. I am addressing those who already consider themselves to be "children of God" and who profess to be Christian by accepting Christ as their savior.

Those who fit that description and who also support or advocate a "women's right to choose", or in other words a women's right to kill the life growing inside of her, have to accept the hypocrisy of this in light of their "faith" which prohibits this act under penalty of eternal damnation.

If religion is a "myth" to you, then I am not addressing this to you.

Thank you for clarifying. I should do the same..

As I put in another response, I was looking at the debate from the standpoint of when was the point in time that the law gets involved.

In a perfect world, every fetus, zygote or blastocyte would be wanted, nourished and have a fair shot at birth - but we all know that doesn't happen.

And I wanted to be clear in my comment about "myth" - that you cannot (in many cases) DISprove it, either. But, to point out the extreme, you don't want to get into things like the Salem Witch Trials. Law *should* be based on mutually agreeable facts. (Again, we know that doesn't always happen)