Video: “Legitimate” rape? Update: Steelman blasts Akin

posted at 8:41 am on August 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Until yesterday, Todd Akin had a comfortable polling lead in Missouri over incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in what had been the most vulnerable seat for Democrats this cycle.  Suddenly, one has to ask whether Akin has a, er, legitimate chance of beating McCaskill, or even a legitimate chance of avoiding a Torricelli maneuver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdisTOKom5I&feature=player_embedded

In the clip, Charles Jaco, of St. Louis Fox affiliate KTVI’s “Jaco Report,” asks Akin whether he thinks abortions ought to permissible in a situation where a woman is raped. While explaining his position, Akin claimed that pregnancy only rarely results from “legitimate rape.”

“Well you know, people always want to make it as one of those things where how do you slice this particularly tough, sort of ethical question,” he replied. “It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors — that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But, let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

Good grief.  First, pregnancy from rape isn’t all that uncommon, as Twitchy discovered with just a little research; it’s around 5%.  At least one researcher has found that conception rates for rape actually exceeds that of single instances of consensual sex. Second, what in Akin’s mind constitutes legitimate rape?  Was he trying to distinguish between forcible rape and statutory rape?  If so, that’s a pretty fine distinction, and one that’s really nonsensical even in the argument Akin was trying to make.  And if he wanted to suggest that some women would lie about being raped in order to secure an abortion, then he’s really setting up an argument that any woman who is pregnant couldn’t really have been raped … which as noted above is simply not the case.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan distanced themselves from Akin’s argument at light speed:

A spokeswoman for Mitt Romney wrote late Sunday that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee and his running mate, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, did not share Rep. Todd Akin’s sentiments on rape.

“Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape,” Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg wrote.

Even Akin himself repudiated his earlier remarks:

“As a member of Congress, I believe that working to protect the most vulnerable in our society is one of my most important responsibilities, and that includes protecting both the unborn and victims of sexual assault.  In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year.  Those who perpetrate these crimes are the lowest of the low in our society and their victims will have no stronger advocate in the Senate to help ensure they have the justice they deserve.

“I recognize that abortion, and particularly in the case of rape, is a very emotionally charged issue.  But I believe deeply in the protection of all life and I do not believe that harming another innocent victim is the right course of action. I also recognize that there are those who, like my opponent, support abortion and I understand I may not have their support in this election.

“But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren.  We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs.  That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.”

“Those who want to distract from that” got a big boost from Akin himself.

Can Republicans replace Akin, if they so choose?  Apparently they can — but the deadline is tomorrow.  Of course, deadlines didn’t matter when Robert Torricelli became a political pariah in New Jersey, but there are a couple of differences.  First, it involved actual corruption, not a case of foot-in-mouth disease, and second, Torricelli was a Democrat.  If Republicans want Akin off the ticket, they’d have to act quickly, which means it won’t happen at all.

That means that Missouri will probably see a lot of debate over “legitimate,” and Republicans had better hope that Akin can legitimately change the subject soon.

Update: Chuck Todd hints that there may be more time than we think if Akin withdraws:

Well, the whole thing’s getting pretty complicated now, isn’t it?

Update II: Sarah Steelman, one of two challengers against Akin in the primary and Sarah Palin’s endorsed choice, blasted Akin this morning on Twitter:

On the other hand, poll analyst Sean Trende reminds us that politicians who say stupid things often don’t pay as much of a price as we’d think:

I’m not sure that this is a comforting thought.

Update III: Even less comforting — Clayton Williams actually lost that election in 1990 to Ann Richards.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9

…and there is no logical inconsistency in saying ending a pregnancy via a pill which prevents implantation is not the same as having a surgical abortion.

Buy Danish on August 20, 2012 at 6:59 PM

You guys just have to focus on social issues, which is not a LEGITIMATE function of government.

Dante on August 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Life and death IS a legitimate function of government — at all levels.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 7:13 PM

You guys just have to focus on social issues, which is not a LEGITIMATE function of government.

Dante on August 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Life and death IS a legitimate function of government — at all levels.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I shouldn’t have said that. It’s far too weak.

Dismissing a life and death issue as a “social issue” is both stupid and offensive.

Pretending that the government has no say in protecting innocent life is both disgusting and reprehensible.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Woman goes out to a bar while her impotent husband is away for the weekend pulling National Guard Duty, and gets some one night stand action. 4 weeks later, she discovers she’s pregnant, and claims it happened when she was raped. Legitimate rape or non-legitimate rape?

xblade on August 20, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Stop arguing like an idiot… Politically, what he said is going to make us lose the most assured Senate seat pickup….

mnjg on August 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM

So, any argument that doesn’t help us win an election is “arguing like an idiot?”

That amounts to “the end justifies the means.”

tom on August 20, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Taking NOTHING away from the raw stupidity of what this guy was trying to say, the legitimacy of rape IS an issue. Anyone working around an emergency room often enough can tell you of cases of claimed ‘rape’ where the accuser walks out arm-in-arm with the accused.

The is NOT to minimize REAL rape. But rape IS claimed in disputes with boyfriends, or when caught in affairs. If it becomes the ONLY way that you can get an abortion, it will be claimed a LOT more.

michaelo on August 20, 2012 at 9:20 AM

And there’s the problem. Right now, “except in case of rape” is nothing more than an excuse meant to defend the need for at least some abortions, by distracting from all the babies summarily killed who were NOT the result of rape. But if abortion is ever restricted and an exception is made for rape, every woman who wants an abortion would claim she was raped.

And suddenly “except in case of rape” would account for most abortions.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 7:36 PM

If a women comes to me and says, I don’t want the baby. I just give more value to that woman will than to the life of the undeveloped being she carries and I cannot see myself forcing her to have the child that at that stage, I frankly cannot feel emotionally attached to.

the prolifers are annoying absolute moralists that take this “life begins at conception” and use it to bludgeon people that take an already painful abortion choice and even deny any arguments that that early life might not be more important than the the free will of women.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Hi Nathor,

So I think I’ve boiled down your argument below:

1. It’s completely OK to abort a baby if not’s a person.

2. It’s horrifically WRONG to kill a baby if it is a person.

2. We don’t really know when personhood occurs (by your admission, you can’t define it at all) but we’ve all decided that we think three months is close enough.

3. Therefore, it’s OK to abort fetuses younger than three months.

The problem (for me) with this argument is that if I’m not sure about that three month mark, I can’t be certain that I’m *not* killing a person, which is wrong.

What this boils down to is that you’re willing to risk killing a person to ease the suffering of a woman who’s been raped. Thing is, how much suffering is sufficient to justify taking the risk that you’re killing a person? Is it only suffering due to rape? What about emotional distress? What if a woman is having a bad day?

Further, it’s a completely arbitrary standard. What if (for example) society decides that the standard should be two years old?If society decides that’s the standard, and my kid is throwing a fit at WalMart, can I slit his throat? Maybe that’s not enough emotional distress. What about long, cross-country trips though with kids in the back seat? Could we install kid-killing stations next to rest stops & call boxes?

And no, this is not a slippery slope. The personhood argument is precisely the argument used to justify the slaughter of the Jews during WWII.

And that’s the issue in a nutshell with any kind of personhood argument for abortion. It’s a completely subjective and arbitrary standard, and I can’t stomach being that arbitrary when life is literally on the line.

RationalIcthus on August 20, 2012 at 8:23 PM

people see the word rape and automatically forgive a woman for murdering her unborn child.

njrob on August 20, 2012 at 9:26 AM

And they should. No one can possibly understand the type of trauma a rape victim experiences. For anyone to pile on additional grief/guilt if a woman wants an abortion in that situation is despicable. I just love all those that are going to decide what is best for everyone else. You sound like Democrats.

lynncgb on August 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM

This is an ugly situation because it pits the interests of the woman raped against the child conceived. But your answer is to just ignore the life produced, and that is just as wrong as it would be to ignore that the woman had been raped.

The baby did not rape the woman, and yet the baby should be put to death?

Why not start by recognizing the obvious: when a man rapes a woman and she becomes pregnant, there is no easy answer! For the woman to have to carry the child to term is obviously unfair. But for the baby to be killed is just as unfair. Worse, in fact, since the pregnancy is temporary, and the baby’s death is permanent.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM

A very good friend recently posted this sharp bit of analysis about Todd Akin:

“”Of course this is appalling. But it is also the logical progression of discourse on abortion access when you position the debate around lowest common denominator scenarios like incest and rape. When many people already believe that women routinely lie about rape, I’m surprised it took this long for a conservative politician to make a statement like this. The reasons behind any woman’s reproductive health decisions should not have to be justified to anyone because it’s no one else’s damn business. Period.” “

libfreeordie on August 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Gee, who is it that keeps wanting to talk about “lowest denominator scenarios like incest and rape” every time abortion is discussed?

Nice of you to admit that you do it deliberately to manipulate the conversation, rather than discuss the actual million and a half babies killed every year that were not cases of rape and incest.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Good grief. First, pregnancy from rape isn’t all that uncommon, as Twitchy discovered with just a little research; it’s around 5%. At least one researcher has found that conception rates for rape actually exceeds that of single instances of consensual sex.

This is what I so value about Ed. He’s an honest guy. Far too often pro-lifers just make up the facts to suit their fantasy of the world. It’s why I rarely have any respect for the pro-life movement. Respect in political debate starts with honesty. If you are pro-life, follow Ed’s example.

To be clear, I don’t think you have to believe that rape increases the chance of pregnancy over consensual sex. I doubt that myself. I’m only saying don’t claim like Akin did that rape rarely causes pregnancy because you don’t want to have address a tough question.

thuja on August 20, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I always love these lectures on “honesty” from the people who pretend that that baby being aborted was just a clump of cells, like a tumor.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Hi Nathor,

So I think I’ve boiled down your argument below:

1. It’s completely OK to abort a baby if not’s a person.

2. It’s horrifically WRONG to kill a baby if it is a person.

2. We don’t really know when personhood occurs (by your admission, you can’t define it at all) but we’ve all decided that we think three months is close enough.

3. Therefore, it’s OK to abort fetuses younger than three months.

The problem (for me) with this argument is that if I’m not sure about that three month mark, I can’t be certain that I’m *not* killing a person, which is wrong.

no one will ever be certain of that argument, but some date has to be set or else you have to force women to have the babies.

What this boils down to is that you’re willing to risk killing a person to ease the suffering of a woman who’s been raped.

raped or not, you cannot force women to have babies they do not desire for whatever circumstance. the live of that “person” is still dependent on the mother.

Thing is, how much suffering is sufficient to justify taking the risk that you’re killing a person?

you dont understand, i am actually saying that the body and free will of full grow person that is the women has full priority over the life of the still undeveloped person that is the baby\fetus.

Is it only suffering due to rape? What about emotional distress? What if a woman is having a bad day?

it silly if a woman takes such important decision over “bad days”, but, its her decision nonetheless. i could advise calm down and think it over, but still is her decision.

Further, it’s a completely arbitrary standard. What if (for example) society decides that the standard should be two years old?

2 years old seems too much, but there was cultures like sparta that killed undesired newborns.
but yes, its arbitrary, 3 months is the number our society can accept in dealing with undesired pregnancies.

If society decides that’s the standard, and my kid is throwing a fit at WalMart, can I slit his throat? Maybe that’s not enough emotional distress. What about long, cross-country trips though with kids in the back seat? Could we install kid-killing stations next to rest stops & call boxes?

lol! that brings memories! lol!

And no, this is not a slippery slope. The personhood argument is precisely the argument used to justify the slaughter of the Jews during WWII.

we are well aware of the abuses that allowing the killing of unborn fetus\babies can bring, but we cannot forbid the whole thing on the fear that we cannot make a sensible compromise thus forcing women to carry the pregancies.

And that’s the issue in a nutshell with any kind of personhood argument for abortion. It’s a completely subjective and arbitrary standard, and I can’t stomach being that arbitrary when life is literally on the line.

RationalIcthus on August 20, 2012 at 8:23 PM

well we really have to find an arbitrary and pragmatic solution, because I cannot stomach forcing women to carry their pregnancies.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Why not start by recognizing the obvious: when a man rapes a woman and she becomes pregnant, there is no easy answer! For the woman to have to carry the child to term is obviously unfair. But for the baby to be killed is just as unfair. Worse, in fact, since the pregnancy is temporary, and the baby’s death is permanent.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM

the baby life depends on the woman body and she is free to dispose of it if she wishes it. end of story. forcing women to have to carry the pregnancy either for these cases of more frivolous reasons seems a huge violence to me.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Heh. YOU began this by being “hostile” to ME. There is no logical inconsistency in differentiating between an egg and an embryo – something I’ve already stated in so many words. I referenced religion because Catholics have a different view and that view affects the treatment of women who end up in Catholic hospital emergency room if they are, you know, raped. Moreover, if I want to reference religion, it’s my prerogative. Don’t like it? Too bad.

Buy Danish on August 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM

You are correct. There is a difference between an egg and embryo. Once the egg is fertilized, however, it jumps that great big cavern between egg and fertilized egg. You weren’t talking about an “egg” in this conversation you have always been talking about a “fertilized egg”, so it is is silly to now claim differently.

cptacek on August 20, 2012 at 9:24 PM

well we really have to find an arbitrary and pragmatic solution, because I cannot stomach forcing women to carry their pregnancies.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

And there’s the difference between you and me. I don’t think a mother should be allowed to become a murderer, and you’re perfectly OK with it because you don’t want to “force” them.

OK. Perhaps it’s time we part ways.

RationalIcthus on August 20, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Why not start by recognizing the obvious: when a man rapes a woman and she becomes pregnant, there is no easy answer! For the woman to have to carry the child to term is obviously unfair. But for the baby to be killed is just as unfair. Worse, in fact, since the pregnancy is temporary, and the baby’s death is permanent.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 8:24 PM

the baby life depends on the woman body and she is free to dispose of it if she wishes it. end of story. forcing women to have to carry the pregnancy either for these cases of more frivolous reasons seems a huge violence to me.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 9:15 PM

I suppose I should appreciate your honesty. If not your callousness and willingness to dispose of inconvenient life.

You just went to a whole lot of trouble to argue that early abortions are perfectly fine. But your argument above would completely justify aborting a baby the day before birth.

It’s almost like you just approve of abortion in general and are willing to adopt any argument to advance it…..

tom on August 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM

It was clearly a loser of a statement. But it is also verifiably true that many unwanted pregnancies are falsley claimed to have been due to rape, when the conception event was completely consensual. That is what Akin meant, but he should never have approached the ridiculously loaded question in the first place.

Anyone still wondering why Palin endoresed the less-well-known but more clear-thinking Steelman?

Lastly, the Clayton Williams 1990 victory following his idiocy about “enjoying” a rape was the Republican gubernatorial primary, not the general election. He did indeed lost to Ann Richards, the source of many horribly idiotic statements herself.

Freelancer on August 20, 2012 at 9:51 PM

well we really have to find an arbitrary and pragmatic solution, because I cannot stomach forcing women to carry their pregnancies.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

.
Fine . . . we’ll make it an issue to go to civil war over. (shaking head sadly)

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 9:52 PM

I suppose I should appreciate your honesty. If not your callousness and willingness to dispose of inconvenient life.

You just went to a whole lot of trouble to argue that early abortions are perfectly fine. But your argument above would completely justify aborting a baby the day before birth.

i could not agree with abortion before birth. if the woman for whatever reason went that far, then it is done! killing the baby would serve no purpose. the “abortion” should be an induced birth, and she can then give the unwanted baby to adoption.

It’s almost like you just approve of abortion in general and are willing to adopt any argument to advance it…..

tom on August 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM

no… abortion is always a negative action, but its not the monstrosity pro-lifers paint it to be.
its just that prolifers are such a pain with their exaggerated rhetoric, to the point of emotional manipulation, that I ended up just being stone cold on the issue.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 9:58 PM

well we really have to find an arbitrary and pragmatic solution, because I cannot stomach forcing women to carry their pregnancies.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 9:02 PM

.
Fine . . . we’ll make it an issue to go to civil war over. (shaking head sadly)

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 9:52 PM

war on women? lol!

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM

And there’s the difference between you and me. I don’t think a mother should be allowed to become a murderer, and you’re perfectly OK with it because you don’t want to “force” them.

OK. Perhaps it’s time we part ways.

RationalIcthus on August 20, 2012 at 9:28 PM

you mean, agreeing on disagreeing? no shame in that!

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Fine . . . we’ll make it an issue to go to civil war over. (shaking head sadly)

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 9:52 PM

.
war on women? lol!

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:00 PM

.
If (God forbid, please ) this country actually fought a civil war over pro-choice vs pro-life, a majority of the women would fight on the pro-life side.

Wanna bet against it?

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:12 PM

If (God forbid, please ) this country actually fought a civil war over pro-choice vs pro-life, a majority of the women would fight on the pro-life side.

Wanna bet against it?

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I can believe it, to a point. if a prohibition of abortion was actually set, you would see a fast reversal on support of abortion by women.
boatloads of sob stories of botched home abortions, abandoned babies and teen suicides would change many deluded female (and male) minds.
its easy to claim the high moral ground when the consequences of “no abortion” seem to have long be forgotten.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM

So the pro-choice argument boils down to this:

I’m against murder. I am uncertain when life begins. Therefore, terminating what might not be a life isn’t murder.

See how that plays on Judgement Day.

That doesn’t make what Akin said right. He chose a bad path for his words and came out looking foolish. That’s still better than someone who permits children to be slain before they have a chance, just for the convenience of a person who lacks self-control. (Not speaking of rape cases)

Freelancer on August 20, 2012 at 10:32 PM

If (God forbid, please ) this country actually fought a civil war over pro-choice vs pro-life, a majority of the women would fight on the pro-life side.

Wanna bet against it?

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I can believe it, to a point. if a prohibition of abortion was actually set, you would see a fast reversal on support of abortion by women.
boatloads of sob stories of botched home abortions, abandoned babies and teen suicides would change many deluded female (and male) minds.
its easy to claim the high moral ground when the consequences of “no abortion” seem to have long be forgotten.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM

A parade of horror stories and anecdotes to sway people emotionally to support what cannot be argued intellectually.

That didn’t even work the first time. Abortion is only legal because a liberal Supreme Court suddenly squinted and found a gosh-darn-it’s-been-in-the-Constitution-all-along-and-we-just-didn’t-see-it-before-now newly-minted Constitutional RIGHT.

It’s never actually been passed by anything resembling elected members of Congress legislating.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 10:38 PM

So the pro-choice argument boils down to this:

I’m against murder. I am uncertain when life begins. Therefore, terminating what might not be a life isn’t murder.

See how that plays on Judgement Day.

Freelancer on August 20, 2012 at 10:32 PM

“The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

I first thought that verse meant that atheists were fools, but that’s not actually the meaning of it. What it actually means is that fools assume they will never have to pay the consequence for their actions.

tom on August 20, 2012 at 10:41 PM

its easy to claim the high moral ground when the consequences of “no abortion” seem to have long be forgotten.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:29 PM

.
“More choices” . . . . . . gestate to full-term, give birth, and put up for adoption (IF . . . they don’t change their mind during the gestation period, and decide to keep the baby).
.
“Boatloads of sob stories of botched home abortions, abandoned babies and teen suicides” are the result of people trying to escape the consequences of the sex act.

If a person (male or female) wants absolute freedom from the responsibilities of parenthood, they should have the appropriate bodily organs removed that produced hormones.
How’s that for a confrontational statement ?

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM

So the pro-choice argument boils down to this:

I’m against murder. I am uncertain when life begins. Therefore, terminating what might not be a life isn’t murder.

if you are in doubt, probably its not a person yet :P

See how that plays on Judgement Day.
Freelancer on August 20, 2012 at 10:32 PM

oh oh, I read somewhere that blasphemy is worse sin than murder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy#Christianity

Thomas Aquinas says that “it is clear that blasphemy, which is a sin committed directly against God, is more grave than murder, which is a sin against one’s neighbor. … it is called the most grievous sin, for as much as it makes every sin more grievous.”[11]

as a hugely productive blasphemer, I should worry about that before I worry with mere murders. lol!

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM

tom on August 20, 2012 at 10:38 PM

.
Well said, tom.

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Seems to me (and without any more context than what I’ve seen here plus a few Drudge headlines) that the comment was simply poorly phrased. And everyone knows that a Democrat would get away with saying far worse.

CanofSand on August 20, 2012 at 10:49 PM

as a hugely productive blasphemer, I should worry about that before I worry with mere murders. lol!

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM

.
Well enjoy the luxury of laughing about it, for NOW.

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Seems to me (and without any more context than what I’ve seen here plus a few Drudge headlines) that the comment was simply poorly phrased. And everyone knows that a Democrat would get away with saying far worse.

CanofSand on August 20, 2012 at 10:49 PM

.
Yup.

But are you suggesting that we shouldn’t be pressuring Akin to bow out of the race?

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:54 PM

If a person (male or female) wants absolute freedom from the responsibilities of parenthood, they should have the appropriate bodily organs removed that produced hormones.
How’s that for a confrontational statement ?

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM

your reasoning has a touch of sadist fascism to it. I think you will enjoy imposing your moral codes on others while at the same time, justifying it with the sacred mission of defending all that you consider life, from those sex loving baby murderers.

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Well enjoy the luxury of laughing about it, for NOW.

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:51 PM

keep dedicating your life to unexisting mythical beings then for your after life well being. the worse that can happen is that you wasted your only real life…

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Well enjoy the luxury of laughing about it, for NOW.

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 10:51 PM

.
keep dedicating your life to unexisting mythical beings then for your after life well being. the worse that can happen is that you wasted your only real life…

nathor on August 20, 2012 at 11:07 PM

.
You sound like Sally Brown in the pumpkin patch with Linus, towards the end of that cartoon.

“What a fool I was . . . “

No Great Pumpkin came along.

But the Creator is more real than the creation.

Whether you accept it or not is your call.

But whether we try to impose the Biblical “standard of morality” on American societal structure is our call, and we’re not backing down.

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 11:34 PM

…and there is no logical inconsistency in saying ending a pregnancy via a pill which prevents implantation is not the same as having a surgical abortion.

Buy Danish on August 20, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Those are the actions someone takes to kill a human. The outcome is the same.

cptacek on August 20, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 7 8 9