In response to:

Indiana Senate: Mourdock Under Fire for Abortion Comments

Happy Jake Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 6:30 AM
I didn't say he was perfect, just that he was right in this particular instance. You have to look at an issue like abortion from a "least harm/most good" perspective. Whichever candidate is going to do the least harm and the most good vis a vis abortion is the one who should win. Unfortunately, there are alarmingly few fully pro-life politicians out there - they are massively outnumbered by the fully pro-abortion politicians (aka 95% of Democrats). So if the best we can do is someone who draws a line between mother's life and rape exceptions, that's the best we can do. And it's still better than someone who draws that line between fully out of the birth canal and half the head still in it.

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...