In response to:

Rape, God, Life and Liberals

jgoebel Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 9:35 PM

Mulbery and Jack, let's try discussing this without calling people names. That's a sign of weakness. Nobody's proposing to force the rape victim or any other woman to carry her child. Yes, child. All we can do is encourage her to carry her child to birth and adoption, and help her in any way we can. In our country, where many people oppose the death penalty for hardened criminals, death seems to be a harsh penalty for a person guilty of being a child of rape.

Join the Debate!

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

Eleanor32 Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 12:20 AM

excellent answer. I have thought the same thing, especially when I have read/heard people supporting no death penalty. Actually, they support no death penalty for people who have murdered others; yet the don't see why a child who has not yet been born, and has done no harm to another person, should not be denied the right to life if the person who is carrying the child so decides.

Flag as Offensive

Post Comment

Read Full Story

Rape, God, Life and Liberals

Let's stipulate that people, and particularly politicians, can get into trouble by attempting to speak for God. But that's not the moral of the story regarding Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.

Responding to a question about abortion, Mourdock offered a grieved response -- his voice breaking a bit -- on the matter of which exceptions he favored. His Democratic opponent, Joe Donnelly, also pro-life, said that he would permit abortions in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. Mourdock said he had "struggled with it . . . for a long time," but had come...

Related Tags: Abortion Liberals Pro-Life Pro-Choice Morality God Richard Mourdock abortion and rape