In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

lemonfemale Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 7:10 AM
Im argue it that way. First, that it IS a baby must be presented as science, not faith. Then for rape- I don't include incest- I say this is the one place the woman had no part in creating the baby. It was foisted on her. I liken it to finding a baby on your doorstep. Can you leave it there to die? Morally, no. I might well acquit a woman on trial for a rape abortion just as I might have acquitted the woman who doused her batterer with gasoline and burned him to death in his sleep, but neither one should be legal.
Nunya8 Wrote: Oct 27, 2012 9:48 AM
Hard to refute your logic there. You only remind me that man cannot legislate morality, only behavior.

Curious how 'legal' and 'ethical' don't always walk in lockstep in America, eh?

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...