In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

Gary3545 Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 8:52 AM
For my rebuttal to this article link/read this: http://www.gdeering.com\GarysVenns\TS_AbortionBB1.htm Here’s a teaser from the article: So anti-abortionists loose "both" ways: even if we elect to skateboard down the slippery slope of allowing --for the sake of discussion-- that fetuses have rights, the law of non-contradiction dictates that the mother's rights supersede those of the fetus. And further, if we make the correct argument that the fetus is not an actual individual but only a potential individual which doesn't acquire rights until it is born and becomes --in the process-- an actual individual, then the anti-abortionist position is twice wrong, doubly wrong, proven wrong.
inkling_revival Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 9:42 AM
Bad link, but that's ok.You're arguing gibberish. If the child has rights in utero (as US law does recognize,) by what ridiculous calculus do you infer that the rights of the mother ALWAYS supersede?

Beyond that, "potential" individual is incoherent. There are no other "potential" individuals in nature. The "potential" individual is provably a separate, living being with human DNA (and is therefore a living human being,) who will become what you call an "individual" if you simply refrain from the unnatural act of killing it. You're just playing the "potential" game to justify killing it for convenience.

You are potentially a decent human being. Is it ok if I kill you?
Nunya8 Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 9:27 AM
Interesting approach. You declare your own logic as fact, then declare the argument won.

You're Al Gore!
Gazinya Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 9:26 AM
AND if the goop comes out of the womb 'kicking and screaming' it is still goop to the abortionist. Just ask our President. Maybe we could add a caveat to this by stating, 'that a goop of cells isn't an individual until an adult claims the goop for themselves to raise into an individual. Two months tops after birth then abort.' That sounds good too, doesn't it?

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...