In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

Bill110 Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 8:36 PM

You say,"abortion is never permissible, except to save the life (not the health) of the mother." There is NO such situation where abortion (to kill the baby) will save the life of the mother. There are alternatives to this fatalistic view. Give an example of where immediate death to the child will save the mothers life. Babies have been delivered at five and six months and have survived. It is insane to think the difference of one or two months of pregnancy will determine the life or death of the mother. Furthermore, is there no faith in God? Can He not be trusted with the life he created?

Join the Debate!

All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.

Wumingren Wrote: Oct 28, 2012 8:45 PM

Even more ridiculous is the idea that partial-birth abortion, which occurs just seconds before a live birth, would have any effect on the health of the mother. In fact, it seems to me that stopping the birth of the child just at the moment it would be born has got to be more traumatic to the mother than just allowing the birth to be completed.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Read Full Story

The Republican Rape Dilemma

As Richard Mourdock’s Indiana Senate fate hinges on how voters absorb his views on rape, all conservatives have an opportunity for a look in the mirror.

Just how pro-life do we want to be?

The Mourdock controversy is nothing like Todd Akin’s self-inflicted wound in Missouri, the result of an embrace of just plain bad medical information.

Mourdock is in hot water for accurately (if not particularly skillfully) articulating what God instructs about the life of the unborn.

If he is on politically shaky ground, it is because he had the courage to stand on the...

Related Tags: Abortion Pro-Life Pro-Choice rape Richard Mourdock unborn children Republican Todd Akin