In response to:

What's Good for the Noose is Good for the Pander

Happy Jake Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 6:02 AM
The problem with principled positions is that they are rarely the "popular" ones. On the "majority" issue, I have a problem with Dr. Adams's math. If you consider the "exception" part of the "rape exception" as the important part, he may have a point. But if you change the semantics, and you simply ask if people think we should allow abortion in case of rape - all other factors being ignored - then it's likely that it is the majority position. It's the WRONG position, to be sure, but probably the majority one all the same. It is impossible in this political climate to take the correct, principled position on abortion - that abortion is wrong and the origin of the pregnancy is inconsequential...
SteveL2 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 3:28 PM
...because demanding that a rape victim must carry her rapist's child to term is CREEPY.

She must: suffer morning sickness; have ultrasounds and perhaps amniocentesis; and even buy a maternity wardrobe, *at her own expense*. All of that just because she was raped.

You're asking a great deal of such a woman, especially if she is pro-choice herself and if she doesn't even belong to any religion. So yes, you would be forcing a pro-choice atheist rape victim to adhere to your own moral code.

To me, that's involuntary servitude. It's creepy, reminiscent of the movie "Rosemary's Baby."

Ann Coulter is right: No law, no Constitutional Amendment, will ever force a rape victim to carry the rapist's child to term.
Rich L. Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 5:42 PM
Sorry that someone is inconvenienced not to murder, but I am inconvenienced not to murder stupid leftists every day. Yet, somehow I do refrain from murdering them when it would ease my burden in life so much.
Happy Jake Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 6:09 AM
... without some media hack either taking words out of context or reporting a clumsily worded defense to portray you as being pro-rape. This is especially galling because a Liberal can take an utterly unprincipled position on rape - Whoopi Goldberg, for example - and everyone forgets about it five minutes later.

Akin's sin was fumble-mouth, his stance was sound, he simply defended it poorly.

Murdock's sin was defending his positon with a liberal in the room. There was nothing wrong with what he said (that the pregnancy NOT THE RAPE was still a gift from God, even under the tragic circumstances), but he was intentionally misquoted and misinterpreted to make him seem callous to the plight of rape victims.
Happy Jake Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 6:12 AM
The problem with exceptions in abortion is that they serve to diminish the truth - that a human being is a living human being from the moment of conception. Viability, the ability to feel pain, brain waves, and heart beats don't matter. From the moment of fertilization, a human egg is a living thing with a full genetic code identifying it as a distinct individual human being. THAT makes it human.
Marie150 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 7:27 AM
And a soul. God loves children. They belong to Him. Woe be to the person that chooses to harm a child.

Recently, Ann Coulter wrote a controversial column suggesting that numerous Republican losses in the 2012 election cycle could be tied to the GOP stance on abortion. After lamenting the problem, she suggested a solution: the GOP should officially abandon its opposition to the so-called rape exception to a ban on abortion.

Ann's position on this matter is wrong for three reasons. First, it is unprincipled. Second, it will not be received with the popular support she envisions. Third, it is not the best political response to the problem. After elaborating on each problem associated with Ann's position, I propose an...