In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

Masher Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 3:59 PM
If you accept the premise that, “newly created life is either sacred or it is not,” then you must either accept all life is sacred and become a vegetarian or carve out the exception for humans. Whatever your belief on the subject, there is no mandate for the Federal Government to have any involvement in the business of abortion, and it should stay out of it. By the same token, there also is no mandate for anyone to force their views on another, no matter the personal moral implication. Moral perspective is individual and while it may be easy to condemn another’s choice, such forced morality is little different than the tenets of Sharia imposed on non-Muslims. con't
The Teleprompter Speaks Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:05 PM
You can also take the view that human life is unique, or has more value than non-human lives. Would you save the life of a puppy or a human baby, when put into the situation when you could only rescue one or the other? You seem to be arguing that it matters not which one, as both lives are sacred.
Masher Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 3:59 PM
con't
Our founding documents affirm the right to life, but it your right to your own life, and while you get to speak for your unborn child, you do not get to speak for another’s.
Anominus Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:06 PM
Nice contradiction there. Our founding documents affirm the unalienable right to life in all humans and state that we are all created equally. The observable point of creation is conception. If all are created equally, and all possess the right to life, then why is on person allowed to take away the life of another?
Masher Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:12 PM
That is one view, not shared by many. Do you wish to force your view on others.
As to the comment below, I was merely pointing out the conflict I see in the article, personally I enjoy a steak.
Anominus Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:18 PM
Mine is the one view which can be backed up by fact. We have laws which force moral views on others, murder for example. Or perhaps you believe that murder is just another alternative moral view? So, yes, this view should be forced on others as anything else is a violation of the right to life as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

No one is arguing that "all life is sacred," so I'm not sure why you are wasting time with a very silly strawman. Humans are the only lifeform on Earth capable of reasoning, and therefore we are the only creatures in possession of rights. A cow is obviously not equal to a human, or perhaps you would like a side of human fetus with your steak?
rickmcq Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:21 PM
Personally I do not carve out the exception for humans; I believe that only human life is sacred.
Masher Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:25 PM
Actually you misunderstand my view. I am pro life, but do not feel obligated to force those that are not to agree with me. I also believe that humans are the exception. Your comment about the child and the steak is offensive.
Jack2894 Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:25 PM
My dogs do not agree with you.
Anominus Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:34 PM
@ Masher: Tell me, if in the privacy of their own home, your neighbors plan to murder their children and you are aware of it, would you attempt to stop them, or would you not want to force a "moral view" on them?

Your "all life is equal" strawman was offensively stupid, so come off it.
rickmcq Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:57 PM
Well, Jack, as long as your dogs agree with you ...

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...