In response to:

What's Good for the Noose is Good for the Pander

SteveL2 Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 3:28 PM
...because demanding that a rape victim must carry her rapist's child to term is CREEPY. She must: suffer morning sickness; have ultrasounds and perhaps amniocentesis; and even buy a maternity wardrobe, *at her own expense*. All of that just because she was raped. You're asking a great deal of such a woman, especially if she is pro-choice herself and if she doesn't even belong to any religion. So yes, you would be forcing a pro-choice atheist rape victim to adhere to your own moral code. To me, that's involuntary servitude. It's creepy, reminiscent of the movie "Rosemary's Baby." Ann Coulter is right: No law, no Constitutional Amendment, will ever force a rape victim to carry the rapist's child to term.
Rich L. Wrote: Nov 14, 2012 5:42 PM
Sorry that someone is inconvenienced not to murder, but I am inconvenienced not to murder stupid leftists every day. Yet, somehow I do refrain from murdering them when it would ease my burden in life so much.

Recently, Ann Coulter wrote a controversial column suggesting that numerous Republican losses in the 2012 election cycle could be tied to the GOP stance on abortion. After lamenting the problem, she suggested a solution: the GOP should officially abandon its opposition to the so-called rape exception to a ban on abortion.

Ann's position on this matter is wrong for three reasons. First, it is unprincipled. Second, it will not be received with the popular support she envisions. Third, it is not the best political response to the problem. After elaborating on each problem associated with Ann's position, I propose an...