In response to:

Indiana Senate: Mourdock Under Fire for Abortion Comments

Happy Jake Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 6:11 AM
Why is the life created by a rape less prescious, less sacred, less human than the life created by consentual sex? That's what you're saying, here, that life created by rape is disposable if you don't want to accept the responsiblity that was thrust upon you. Is carrying and caring for a child of rape difficult? I presume so, not having experienced it myself. But doing the right thing - the objectively, morally, ethically right thing - is almost never the easier of the two choices. In saying abortion for rape is OK, but abortion for consentual sex is not, you make a distinction without a difference. Abortion is abortion regardless of why it is done.
Panda Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 2:52 PM
I never said that life created by a rape is less precious. I said the person who was assaulted and forced into this situation shouldn't be FORCED by the Federal Government to become a lifesaver. I believe it would be noble to do so, and I would offer every means of support, but forcing her to do so is against conservative principles of personal responsibility for personal choices.
Happy Jake Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 6:33 AM
You don't know me. You don't know what my experience is. You don't know what my background is. Do not presume to know what I would or would not do if something were to happen to me.

And at what point did I say that abortion if the mother is in danger is OK? What part of "Abortion is abortion regardless of why it is done" says that's my feeling? I'm not defending the whole candidate, just the one thing he said that the media twists beyond recognition.
wodiej Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 6:18 AM
so abortion in the case of rape is not Ok for you but abortion if the life of the mother is in danger is Ok. That is what Mourdock thinks. So essentially he is being a hypocrite. If your mother, wife or daugther were raped or the victim of incest, I bet your stance would be much different.

The tight Indiana Senate race has taken a controversial turn in the last twenty-four hours, as Republican hopeful Richard Mourdock deals with fallout from his remarks about abortion in last night’s debate. It’s the same concept that got Todd Akin in trouble: the candidate’s stance on abortion in the case of rape or incest. Pro-life Mourdock does not support an exception in either case, and his word choice in so stating has him in hot water with Democrats and even some fellows on the Right.

Unlike Akin, however, Mourdock didn’t make an offensive or outrageous claim based on junk...