In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

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.
rickmcq Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:57 PM
Well, Jack, as long as your dogs 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.
Jack2894 Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 4:25 PM
My dogs do not agree with you.
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.
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.
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?
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 4:06 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?

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...