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.

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.

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.

:BigApplause:

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.

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

LOL...:highfive:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sorry to step on the discussion.
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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/...rrid=387054256

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

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.