You can make a 100% ironclad pro-life case without saying what Mourdock did and without saying what Akin did.
These men are HURTING the pro life cause and as a sideline may even be throwing the Presidential election.
There is no excuse for any of this. It is not necessary.
RE: These men are HURTING the pro life cause and as a sideline may even be throwing the Presidential election.
There is no excuse for any of this. It is not necessary.
________________________
OK, let’s put you in the position of advising these men... how would you answer the question of “What’s your policy regarding abortion as it relates to a woman who has conceived after being raped?”
You say it isn’t necessary ... BUT YOU MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION, IT *WILL* ( REPEAT — *WILL* ) BE BROUGHT UP.
Let’s listen to your answer if you were in their shoes.
“...These men are HURTING the pro life cause ...”
I don’t see how this is hurting the pro life cause - or it least it shouldn’t when this is thought through rationally. Mourdock is actually being consistent. If one correctly takes the pro life position that a person’s life (including unborn life) is sacred and a gift from God, this includes a life begun as a consequence of rape.
The baby who is later born is not responsible for how s/he was conceived. That person has received the gift of life - bestowed by God. The culpable party is the person who committed the crime and is the one who needs punishing, not the innocent child. It is the rapist who needs to suffer the consequences for his deed; it is ludicrous to conclude that the developing child deserves to undergo capital punishment and take the hit for the crime instead of the perpetrator.
Mourdock is pointing out this position that is based upon the logic of reality.