didn't she state she wasn't going to run for Congress, something like, "I am running for the president of the united states"

I guess even she realizes here chances of becoming president are 0 and she needs a job probably, so what she's gonna do if not running for Congress ?

I think this is a bad read. I think most people that are pro-life feel abortion is immoral and have a hard time making exceptions even in the cases of rape/incest. I have absolutely no way of supporting my thesis but there you have it.

maybe he "misspoke"?

Haha. I think most punters feel it's ridiculous to defend "full ****** pro punter euro socialism" and they can't resist reasonable things like rape/ilness/mother safety exceptions out of their mouth. On the other hand they are told to be "pro-punter euro socialism, life and liberty illegal !" hence the confusion. Same **** happening to punter when he starts talking about anything.

Doesn't make sense. Either you are or aren't. In case of rape or incest, you still, philosophically, are ending a life.

It's like saying you are against the death penalty except for certain cases.

The stupid stuff Cain says is mitigated by the fact that he does not have a firm grasp of the English language. If he were routinely able to find the proper words to express what he tries to say, he'd have all kinds of hahohwow moments. But he's so bad at putting words together that he leaves room for people to wonder what he actually means.

He is pretty bad at language/explaining things. Case in point was his apples/oranges spiel in the last debate. He was actually right (one of the few times), but just couldn't figure out how to explain it.

It also shows how dumb everyone is, the public and most of the candidates, that they can't understand that when comparing (A + B) and (A + C), there is no reason to even bring A into the conversation. I couldn't tell if Romney actually didn't get it, or if he was just trolling knowing the vast majority of the public wouldn't get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OxnN2pxMAg

What's wrong with being for the death penalty except for certain cases? Surely you realize that every convicted murderer doesn't get the death penalty.

Romney wanted to make sure he admitted that people would be "double taxed" prior to making his comment....pretty obvious.

It will be interesting to watch how the 9-9-9 will be argued along with Perry's new (or old Forbes deal) in the debates.

His comment/point is ******ed though. If you are paying the same state tax in both scenarios, its irrelevant, and the only thing you need to compare is 999 vs the current federal taxes.

Yeah, his point made close to no sense, but I think it was largely Cain's fault for the confused explanation.

Because it's still ending a life. Either you are for it, or against it, especially in the case of abortion.

The arguments are that the life is innocent and life starts at conception. Which of these two are not true in the case of rape or incest? Neither, then how can you be for abortion in those cases? Doesn't make sense, to me, at least.

My comments were referring to the death penalty, that you brought up. I can't speak for anyone else but I would venture to say that in the event of rape and incest the thinking is that the termination is done immediately like "the morning after pill".

well she has stated on many occasions of her profession as an IRS tax lawyer. She could always return to the fold, and aid the revenuers in their pursuit of capital

I can easily see how somebody could be against abortion with the exceptions of rape or incest. In fact, I believe a large number of people actually hold that view.

It does makes sense and it's a view which is the most common in my country for example (which is largely pro-life with common sense exceptions).
Even if you are 100% fanatical about your religious views and believe like St. Augustin (from whom for example catholic dogma comes from) that life begin at conception (or even before !) you could see that many in the society holds different views and you can understand cruelty of forcing mother to give birth to child after she had been raped. You can reasonably hold a view that mother's right to decide in those circumstances is more important than life of an unborn but that mother's right to end pregnancy at will is less important than that.

Only fanatics refuse to admit mother's rights are worth something. Sadly not many pro-lifers are capable of saying something like:
"Ok, it's cruel to force mothers to give birth to unwanted/genetically ill/bound to be unhappy children but I believe life is more important and I am happy to impose my views on everybody else here are my reasons". Usually they just refuse to talk about other sides arguments at all.


Ok I couldn't restrain myself for inserting my usual criticism of Paul. I can't just get over him being so popular on those boards despite him being (in my view) a moron. Honest, likeable, idealistic but still a moron.
I am not so "full ****** socialist" though. Where I live my economic views are about in the middle, maybe even a bit on the right side.

And what I'm saying is that view is stupid. You either believe life starts at conception or you don't. Is the baby's life worth less because of rape? It's still a life. You are justifying killing a fetus due to the circumstances of its inception and the perceived cruelty to the mother, but how does that outweigh taking a life?

Listen, I'm more pro-choice than pro-life, dependent on the stage of the pregnancy. It's not an easy thing to decide and possibly one of the only subjects where I'm really torn. I'm simply stating the fact that the pro-lifers want it both ways. It doesn't make sense at all. Justifying it by saying most people hold that view doesn't make it correct.


Same thing as above. Either it's killing a baby or it's not. What of the the cruelty of a young teenage mother having a child and not being able to finish school or the impact on her life? Can you not justify that as "cruel"? Maybe, maybe not, but the argument of the effects of the birth doesn't change the fact of the act.

Anyway, we're getting way off topic, I'm just saying Cain isn't smart enough to know wtf he believes because he hasn't sat down and thought about it enough. You ask me my opinion, I can verbalize it because I've thought about it quite a few times in my life. Cain fumbles and ****s it up.

I didn't try to justify anything.

I just pointed out that for me it's easy to see how someone could hold that position, and in fact that a lot of people actually do hold that position.

People have complicated and not entirely consistent views on many subjects.

Lol, yes I can see how somebody can hold that view. They're either hypocritical or they don't have a clue as to why they are actually against abortion. If "life" begins at conception, then the argument is that a fetus deserves the same status and protections as any other human. For the United States that argument means that the life of a fetus would be protected under the 14th amendment (see Roe v Wade). There's no way someone can believe life begins at conception and justify elective abortions (when the mother's life isn't in danger).

The only reason pro-life politicians use the rape and incest exceptions is they don't want to take a stand that makes them look like complete douchebags.

<---completely prochoice btw

You are making an assumption that a life is most important thing and all other are less important, so if it's life it must be protected at all costs.
It's reasonable to be pro-choice even if you believe life begins at conception. You just value mother's right more than value of unborn life.
Same for pro-lifers who allow for rape/incest etc. exception. They can think it's life at conception but mother's rights are more important. It change when unborn life is developed enough or/and mother's decision is made without important cause.

I don't see a point of "you either believe it's life or not". I don't even think it's important at all to decide when "life" begins as it's only matter of language nitpicking and arbitrary chosen definition of "life".

Maybe they believe that life begins at conception, and a fetus mostly should enjoy the same protections as any other human, except in such cases as when it will negatively affect the mother - like cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life may be in danger.

Sorry, it doesn't seem all that crazy a position to me.

<--- Also pro choice, but uncomfortable with it.

In one post you said your more pro choice than pro life, your next post your completely pro choice but you don't get inconsistencies?????????????

There are 2 different wills itt.