In response to:

The Republican Rape Dilemma

rgreer945 Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 12:08 PM
Laws are instruments of POWER. If you declare that the POWER of a state extends to the realm of deciding a woman must bear a child, then you are also declaring the state has the POWER to declare that a woman must not bear a child. The ignorance of declaring such a state POWER defies explanation to a logical mind.
IsraelFirsterSecond Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 12:37 PM
Must bear a child? How about must not commit murder?
DCM in FL Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 12:32 PM
But a given state is very unlikely to exercise its POWER in both ways.

In China they declare that a woman must not bear a child under certain circumstances. But they do not declare that a woman must bear a child.
Troglodite Wrote: Oct 26, 2012 12:25 PM
By extension, the assertion that the state has the power to prohibit larceny or murder or rape means that it has the power to require larceny or murder or rape. Go away or try a serious argument.

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...