In response to:

Romney and the Rapist

Big O7 Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 8:22 PM
Sorry, you struck out here, Mike. As much as you don't like it, there are pro-lifers as committed (or more) than you, who actually live in the real world. They sadly admit the tragic fact that we are not going back to prohibiting abortion for cases of rape, and therefore work to save the 97% of innocents, rather than be a purist like you ("morally superior" even to his own brethren) and save no one. "Deep moral confusion and chronic moral capitulation"? Please! These good women and men were faithfully defending the unborn while you were still an atheist.
USMC LM Wrote: Aug 29, 2012 2:22 AM
We'll take what we can now but it is important to remember, and talk about, that these exceptions for rape, etc are NOT the goal. This is just a stepping stone to enshrine in law and the Constitution the protection of all innocent life. Dr Adams does his part to remind us of the true goal.
lemonfemale Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 9:29 PM
Big 07 above may be too harsh. I would support the compromise for the reason stated. But I would be back for the other 3% as soon as I could. Part of that strategy would be to not accept the "tragic fact that we are not going back to prohibiting abortion for cases of rape" and keep talking about it. As Mr. Adams does here.
Carlos7 Wrote: Aug 28, 2012 9:10 PM
"...while you were still an atheist"

Ouch!
I have a friend who suffered through a horrific gang rape nearly twenty years ago. There were three perpetrators but one in particular served as the ringleader and principal conspirator. He was in his early thirties when he planned the crime and convinced a twenty-one year old and a nineteen year old to join him. His victim was only sixteen years old.

After raping a girl only half his age, the principal rapist let the others have their turn. Then he raped her again. In between his two assaults upon her he slapped her around viciously and poured alcohol...