Originally Posted by djplong

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.

Originally Posted by buggyone

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?

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.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

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 ???

Originally Posted by ilovetv

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.

Originally Posted by memason

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.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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.

Originally Posted by billethkid

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

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.

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?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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?

Originally Posted by ladydoc

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.