What Is In the Water In Colorado?

Wednesday, March 6, AD 2013



I have had two prior posts on Democrat Colorado legislators, here and here, who apparently would prefer to see women raped then armed.  Ace, at Ace of Spades, brings to the fore a third Democrat, Senator Evi Hudak.


You’re a dumb little girl and you don’t know what you’re talking about.  Why don’t you stop talking, dumb little girl?

Katie Pavlich previously reported her story.  I’m going to quote some of it, but you should probably read it all.

Amanda Collins is a young rape survivor. While in college in 2007, she was raped 50 feet away from the campus police department office at the University of Nevada-Reno and was lucky to get out alive. Her attacker was James Biela, a serial rapist who raped two other women and murdered another. He attacked her at gun point in a gun free zone. At the time of the attack, Collins was in possession of a concealed weapons permit but was not in possession of her firearm due to university policies prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on campus.

“I was legislated into being a victim,” Collins said.


Well, that’s a hell of a story, and a hell of an inconvenience for the Bullets-Don’t-Work-On-Criminals crowd.  Fortunately, Democratic State Senator Evi Hudak was there to propagate this theory:

Well, I just want to say statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you and possibly use it against you,” Hudak said.Collins responded by saying, “Respectfully Senator, you weren’t there…I was there, I know without a doubt in my mind at some point I would have been able to stop my attack by using my firearm. He already had a weapon of his own, he didn’t need mine.”


Ms. Hudak probably doesn’t know what “semi-automatic” means, given that she seems unclear that a gun is a projectile weapon usable at range.  She seems to not understand the rapist was interested in a live girl, not a dead body, and that Collins, however, would have been quite interested in a dead rapist.  As rape must be conducted at touching distance, but shooting can occur at touching distance to hundreds of yards away, I’m a bit flabbergasted by this notion that a rapist would obviously just take a gun away from a woman.

Is he going to deflect bullets with his Sith hands, too?

Continue reading...

2 Responses to What Is In the Water In Colorado?

  • “At the time of the attack, Collins was in possession of a concealed weapons permit but was not in possession of her firearm due to university policies prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on campus.” …university needs to be sued.

  • “This is just the sort of story that confirms that some gun-controllers have little or no interest in the proven effectiveness of citizens in defending themselves. For them such information is completely beside the point. Victims should sue those who contribute their injury, and we all should take seriously the violation of their oath of office by so many elected officials. Private ownership of guns is an obstacle to the establishment of a dictatorship, and many on the left are so blinded by ideology that they cannot see the dictatorship they are building, legislative brick by brick.

Rape and Kung Fu

Wednesday, February 20, AD 2013

The hits just keep on coming regarding guns and rape courtesy of Democrats in the Colorado legislature.  Democrat Representative Paul Rosenthal opines in the above video that women do not need guns to protect themselves from rape;  citing mace, taser, the buddy system and judo as gun substitutes.  Rosenthal apparently is so afraid of pistol packing mamas that any other alternative is preferable.  Gun “control” has always had a touch of the irrational about it, as the focus is placed on an inanimate object instead of the people who wield it either for good or for ill.  To keep guns out of the hands of the general public, gun “control” advocates are quite willing to see people go without the single most effective response to a violent confrontation.  If this isn’t a restriction on the individual liberty that most Americans prize, no restriction on liberty, in principle, can be opposed.  This is government treating citizens like children who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions for their own good.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Rape and Kung Fu

  • As a native Coloradoan I am dismayed by the idiots who are in the legislature (thanks Boulder and Denver). Thirty-five years ago my family’s life was threatened by a criminal who had been in the employ of a relative. The Colorado AG told my mother how to legally kill this person should she come to our home. Yes, it involved a gun.

    Twenty years ago, when I was in a law enforcement academy, I was paired with a man who was much larger than I. The point of the pairing was to prove a point to the class- the only way I would survive an assault by this man would be to shoot him. Maybe if these imbeciles actually had a grounding in reality they wouldn’t make assinine statements such as these.

  • “Maybe if these imbeciles actually had a grounding in reality they wouldn’t make assinine statements such as these.”

    Perhaps Cynthia although some ignorance is indeed invincible.

  • This idiocy deserves to be at least as widely trumpeted as the “legitimate rape” comments from the election season. But it’s a Democrat making an ass of himself, so of course it won’t be.

  • Not from lack of effort on my part Darwin! Mainstream outlets in Denver are begrudingly picking it up.

  • A woman need not resort to tasering in the absence of a suitable firearm. A pike is a formidable weapon that can keep the assailant at a suitably far distance to ensure the safety of the pikewoman. In the event of a ban on high capacity magazines, the pike can be thrust as many times as needed to take out the scumbag. The only real issue is how to fit it into a purse.

  • I fought off an attacker. “Be quiet or I will blow your brains out”. I gave him both elbows and broke free and began to scream. The attacker ran away. I later read in the newspaper that he had found another victim. This one needed to be shot.

  • Mary, how terrifying! I’m glad you came out of it okay.

  • The most commonly reported category of rape is so-called date-rape, and in England and Wales it is estimated that a hundred false accusations are made annually. The alleged victim is granted anonymity; not so the accused, who is ‘named and shamed’ even if the case never gets to court (and usually it doesn’t). If it does, the jury has to decide whom to believe, since the requirement for corrobarative evidence in cases of sexual assault was dropped twenty years ago (although it is still required in Scotland). If women are allowed to shoot someone on the grounds that he was attempting rape, it gives them carte blanche to dispose of a husband or boyfriend and then claim “I said no, but he wouldn’t listen”.
    Cynthia makes a good point about law enforcement. A male officer, confronted by an unarmed and aggressive drunk, would be able to restrain him and effect an arrest. A female officer would have to shoot him.

  • “If women are allowed to shoot someone on the grounds that he was attempting rape, it gives them carte blanche to dispose of a husband or boyfriend and then claim “I said no, but he wouldn’t listen”.”

    Not in this country. The battered woman defense sometimes works in this country but frequently it does not. In America people are allowed to use deadly force to prevent an assault in most states, but the burden is upon the defendant to establish that an assault was about to occur.

  • “In America people are allowed to use deadly force to prevent an assault in most states, but the burden is on the defendant to establish that an assault was about to occur”. I can’t see how this would work in the case of date-rape where there are no witnesses and the putative assailant is already dead. How serious does the threatened assault have to be to justify the use of lethal force? Common assault does not usually result in grievous bodily harm, and an unwanted hand on a knee is technically sexual assault. Is there a concept of proportionate response?

    Between 1995 and 2010 thirty-three people were shot dead by British police officers, and some of victims turned out to be unarmed. This has aroused public concern, as in only two cases were the officers responsible identified, and police evidence afterwards is suspect. It would be interesting to know what the statistics are for the US, but there seem to be no official ones in the public domain.

  • “I can’t see how this would work in the case of date-rape where there are no witnesses and the putative assailant is already dead.”

    Easily actually. Were there threats before hand witnessed by other people? Did the dead person have a history of violence? Does the victim have evidence of having been physically assaulted? Was a report promptly made of the death? What comments did the dead person make via social media to the victim prior to being shot. (People who commit crimes, or who intend to commit crimes, often leave a trail a mile wide these days on Facebook, twitter, etc, to the distress of their hard working defense attorneys. Criminals are usually not rocket scientists.)

  • Alphatron Shinyskullus:
    I know your prayers are heard retroactively, since God is omnipresent, outside of time. Thank you, keep praying. God is in charge.
    on being attacked:
    He was the devil’s zombie. There was no soul, only a terrifying nothingness, the likes of which I have never seen. After I broke loose, I spun around and saw the concrete sidewalk under his shoes through his eyes. It is an ever-present terror to me. If this is hell, I do not want to go there.

  • Cynthia, these people are not imbeciles at all. They are Stalinists. They know that they cannot implement their Communist style dictatorship while Americans are armed, so they will first disarm the people. They are just using crime as an excuse. Funny how these mass shootings are done mainly by registered Democrats, yet the Dems are the ones who want to change the government and take the guns.

  • Don, date-rape isn’t usually about violence, it’s about non-consensual sex. A lot of young women nowadays, even in ‘respectable’ jobs, are sexually promiscuous, even predatory. There was a case not long ago of a woman barrister who met a man at a party, went to bed with him, and reported him for rape the next morning on the grounds that she had been too drunk to give her consent. I personally know someone who was maliciously accused; it was six months before the Crown Prosecution Service decided it wouldn’t stand up in court – his life was ruined and she got off scot-free. It’s hardly surprising that only six percent of reported rapes result in a conviction.

    James, you are as subject to the dictatorship of relativism and political correctness as the rest of us, guns or no guns. The only other western country with a large number of military-style weapons kept in peoples’ homes is of course Switzerland, where all able-bodied males of military age are required to be in the militia (women can volunteer). Homicides involving service weapons were running at about 300 a year (in a population of 7.6 million) so in 2007 it was decided that although weapons were still kept at home, ammunition would be kept in secure depots.

    I respect the arguments of the NRA regarding the right to bear arms, but freedom often comes at a cost. The Germans, alone in Europe, claim the right to drive as fast as they want on the Autobahnen, and are prepared to pay the price in higher traffic casualties.

  • As a Coloradoan for most of the year at the cabin I am a pistol packin “mamma”. I have never shot at anything but targets nor do I want to. However there are wolves(which I love) and snakes which I don’t love, and any number of varmints inhabiting the hills around me. Even though I am secluded out there you never know who might wander in. I also am a(very old) Girl Scout and my motto is “Be prepared” Even here on the Wisconsin farm you never know when you might have to calm a bull down. All these liberated women and progressive worms have no idea what it takes to “Defend” oneself. They give us so little credit! (And sometimes there’s that skunk in the chickn coop.)

  • “Don, date-rape isn’t usually about violence, it’s about non-consensual sex”

    Which is the epitome of violence.

    “It’s hardly surprising that only six percent of reported rapes result in a conviction.”

    Which indicates that the system, one hopes, is doing a good job separting the wheat from the chaff.

    “I respect the arguments of the NRA regarding the right to bear arms, but freedom often comes at a cost.”

    There is always a cost to freedom John, and it is always worth paying.

  • “How serious does the threatened assault have to be to justify the use of lethal force? Common assault does not usually result in grievous bodily harm, and an unwanted hand on a knee is technically sexual assault. Is there a concept of proportionate response?”

    Yes there is such a concept. The use of deadly force in defense requires justification that one’s life is being threatened with deadly force. If someone is in your home against your wishes and you kill them I doubt there is a jury in America that would convict them (certainly not in my state anyway), but if you kill someone because they put their hand on your knee you’re probably doing time unless you can convince a jury of why that hand on your knee represented a threat to your life. Like was said earlier in the discussion, gun control advocacy in America is all about Government treating citizens as children. We own weapons for self defense, it’s a right granted to us by God, and insured in our Governing documents that Government shall not infringe upon that right. That’s not ever going to change. If you abuse the right, you pay the price, like so many other crimes. Other than that, Molon Labe.

  • Peculiar that they are targeting women specifically with this proposed legislation (and aren’t the non-lethal options of mace and tasers also forbidden on campus? No mention of any defensive weapons in the university’s list of suggestions, other than, uh, certain fluids). The only guns-for-self-defense incidents I can vaguely recall being close to all involved women: a great-great aunt shooting dead a mountain lion who approached while she was hanging laundry; the neighbor lady coldly informing the men taking her back door off its hinges that she had a loaded .22 rifle ready; and me as a ninth-grader, discouraging an increasingly predatory high-school stalker with a demilitarized and nonfunctioning FN Herstal.
    But then I also remember my mother’s cousin, who was thrown off a bridge because she ‘knew too much.’ She didn’t have a gun. She had a Boston terrier. Not an adequate substitute. My guess is, pepper spray, call boxes, and projectile-vomiting-on-demand would not have helped her either.

  • I used to buy into the mentality that non-lethal means were generally sufficient. I figured we could grab the kids and escape if need be. Mind you, I fired expert with the M-16, and knew how to handle a weapon. Then when we had five kids, a police chase ended up in our front yard. The guy was cornered in vehicle. The officer got out, and the guy gunned it and rammed the police car. I heard the chase coming and when they came down our street I had all of the kids get into the farthest bedroom with my wife. I seriously thought he was going to try to get in the house until he rammed the police car. If that had happened, I had no idea if I would be up against an armed assailant to defend my family. You can’t carry five kids with two adults over a backyard fence to get away. That just doesn’t work. He hit a few other cars and ran over the lawns of other houses getting away until he finally ended up trapped in a cul-de-sac and was tasered. Then a guy got murdered with a cinder block by some meth head who didn’t even live in our town, just for being there, and this was only a few blocks away. And Sureno gang graffiti began to appear near rental properties. So I realized the whole non-lethal thing might be lethal for me, and I became a gun owner. I began with a Mosin Nagant rifle, because that was what I could afford. It has a nice bayonet on the end too. I have since acquired better firearms, including an AK, an SKS, and a .45 compact auto. I have a duty to protect my family, and I need the means at my disposal to do so. A drugged out 250 pound man will kill a person who doesn’t have a firearm. That’s just all there is to it, and it happened near my house.

    We moved to what we thought would be a safer neighborhood after a couple of incidents which demonstrated the police cannot be relied upon to protect you. At a previous residence a man was shooting a handgun at people a block away, and it took the police 45 minutes to get there. Also about a block away from that earlier residence, a guy who did not live in that city picked a random daycare provider, barged in and took a child, and led the police on a chase that ended in a crash on the interstate. Luckily, the little girl he took was uninjured.

    While our public servants might wish to protect us, as a practical matter they cannot. In the face of that reality, it is unjust to remove our means of defending ourselves effectively.

Better to be Raped Than to be Armed

Monday, February 18, AD 2013

At least that is what Joe Salazar, a Democrat State Representative in Colorado, apparently believes:


“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Better to be Raped Than to be Armed

Richard Mourdock and the Illogic of the Rape Exception

Wednesday, October 24, AD 2012

Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock is in trouble. When talking about his opposition to abortion and whether he believes that there should be an exception in the case of rape, he had this to say:

“I know there are some who disagree, and I respect their point of view, but I believe that life begins at conception,” the tea party-backed Mourdock said. “The only exception I have, to have an abortion, is in that case of the life of the mother.

“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said, appearing to choke back tears. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

There have been hysterics from the usual quarters, and Mitt Romney has even had to distance himself from the remarks. Pro-life candidate for governor, Mike Pence, even called on Mourdock to apologize.

Apologize for what?

Mourdock’s phrasing was awkward in that it he could be interpreted as saying that the rape itself was God’s will. Clearly Mourdock is referring to the pregnancy. Therefore what Mourdock is relating here is the true pro-life position. It’s nowhere near as bad as Todd Akin’s legitimate rape comments, and therefore those trying to make hay out of these comments are simply being disingenuous.

I was irked by something that Drew M at Ace of Spades said on this topic. Even though Drew thinks the backlash is unwarranted, he had this to say about Mourdock’s position:

I think Mourdock’s position is appalling (not his thoughts on God’s unknowable plans but the idea a rape victim should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term)

Normally I agree with Drew, but how can one find Mourdock’s position appalling, especially if one is otherwise generally pro-life? I can understand why people take the pro-life with exceptions position, and I would definitely accept a political compromise that prohibited abortion in all cases except rape, incest and where the life of the mother is at risk (though I think the practical application of such a law would be fraught with difficulties, but that’s for another discussion). And while I certainly don’t want to distance myself from people who are with me 99% of the way on an issue that is of the utmost importance, the pro-life with exceptions stance is logically untenable.

If you are pro-life it is because you presumably believe that life begins at conception. So if you advocate for the prohibition of abortion while simultaneously allowing exceptions, are you saying that the lives of those conceived via rape are somehow not fully human? Does the means of conception somehow instill greater value in certain forms of human life than others? If you are pro-life “except for rape,” what you’re basically saying is that abortion is murder and unacceptable, but murdering a child conceived in rape is somehow permissible. Well why should the method of conception matter?

In truth I understand why people are reluctant to commit to a 100 percent pro-life position. It is uncomfortable arguing that a woman who has experienced a brutal crime should then be forced to keep her child – a child that is a result of no choice of her own, and which could compound the trauma of what she has gone through. But by doing so, you are allowing sentiment to override reason.

The “with exceptions” pro lifers concern me because I wonder if they have fully thought through their positions. It is why polls that show a majority of Americans now turning towards a pro-life position are not necessarily cause for rejoicing quite yet. Again, I do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak, and in no way would I want to turn these people away from the pro-life movement completely. Yet I think the instant revulsion to the sentiments expressed by Mourdock on the part of even some pro-lifers is worrisome.

Continue reading...

31 Responses to Richard Mourdock and the Illogic of the Rape Exception

  • “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    This statement is so fraught with theological difficulties and potential misinterpretations that, were this Pope Benedict himself, I would hesitate to recommend that he make it absent an audience of theologians.

  • Judging from his response to the controversy Mourdock is a class act:

  • Paul. I agree with your concern and position.
    What is the victim of rape doing if she inflicts her pain on another victim, her fetus. Healing never starts at the onset of violence to another. You are right to be concerned about the exception mentality. Drews position on this is appalling. The rape victim now has two huge wounds to heal. The violence she was subject to and the violence she inflicted upon another. In no way does two wrongs make it right. Time heals and rape victims that have given their babies a chance at life through adoption are victims no longer. They have deepened their faith in God, not cursed God for their misfortune. Rachaels Vineyard has some resources to back up my claims.

  • Donald,

    I agree. I rarely decide not to vote for a candidate based on theological ineptitude.


  • What I find hilarious about this is that the very same people who are in hysterics that a candidate proposes not inflicting a death penalty on a child conceived in rape, is that these very same people would likely oppose inflicting a death sentence upon the rapist.

  • “I rarely decide not to vote for a candidate based on theological ineptitude.”

    Agreed, especially when we encounter the deep fathoms of predestination and divine foreknowledge!

  • Yes! And not to mention (except that I will, just now) active versus passive will, potentially blaming God for evil, and all sorts of fun things.

    Donald, have you ever read Tsunami and Theodicy (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/05/tsunami-and-theodicy) or Doors of the Sea (http://www.amazon.com/Doors-Sea-Where-Was-Tsunami/dp/0802866867)?

    The book grew out of the article. Both are worth reading.


  • My objection to Mourdock and Akin has nothing to do with their position on abortion. All I say is that when you know for a certainty that you will get a question on something controversial, you think carefully how to express your position clearly and accurately or go the other route and dodge it. if you can’t manage that then you ensure that you have a compliant media that will cover up every gaffe, misstatement and tortured phrase. Unfortunately, both candidates by their laziness have vindicated the Establishment Repubs big time and helped the Leftists.

  • Donald, have you ever read Tsunami and Theodicy (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2008/05/tsunami-and-theodicy) or Doors of the Sea (http://www.amazon.com/Doors-Sea-Where-Was-Tsunami/dp/0802866867)?

    Yes as to Tsunami and Theodicy and no as to Doors of the Sea.

  • About the only honorable thing to do here is get right back in the faces of these people and declare that what is truly appalling is that an innocent child ought to be gruesomely butchered and thrown in the garbage because its father is a rapist.

    Yes, all people, men and women, should be “forced” not to murder innocent human beings, regardless of the circumstances in which they come into this world. They don’t have to raise them, but they cannot be permitted to kill them.

    If we can’t say this clearly and forcefully, then we are not pro-life, but frauds and impostors.

  • If Mourdock had simply ended his remarks with “I came to realize that life is a gift from God,” he would have made his point without giving the other side quite so much ammunition.

  • To those who believe in the rape exception, I would ask three questions:

    1) If abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life, how does the horrible circumstance, which rape is, to put it lightly, make the unborn child any less human or any less innocent?

    2) How does an abortion to bring any healing to the terrible violence of the rape? IN fact, post abortion syndrome (which is a fact, not just anti-abortion speculation) is likely to compounfd the trauma.

    3) Although the rape victim is indeed a victim, what right does that give her to make other victims?

    I have found that the rape, incest, life of the mother exceptions are often thrown out as dicersionary debating tactics to avoid dealing with the fundamental issue of abortion.

    I think this is where solid pro-life Catholic politicians like Paul Ryan get put in a bad position having to carry the water for people like Romney on this issue.

  • I was unaware of this story, but have recently met a ‘child of rape’. Perhaps Mourdock (and others) should use it, or other stories like it. I’m sure there are plently of children of rape, now grown, who can attest to the courage of mothers, and the value of their lives. http://rantingcatholicmom.blogspot.com

  • Ever since John Chancellor asked Michael Dukakis the famous “Kitty Dukakis is raped and murdreed” question that gave G. H. W. Bush the 1988 election, I have imagined what I would answer to any such ambush. I imagine Wolfie Blitzer or some such intellectual asking, “Your daughter is raped. Would you seek an abortion?” To which my answer would be “And put murder on top of rape? How much do you want the poor child to endure, Mr. Blitzer?”

    This is the essence of a practiced response, and anybody running for Senate, or any other office, from a non-Liberal standpoint had getter have principled and practiced responses to any question in any field. Who’s running his campaign? The Carmel Dad’s Club? I could do better.

  • His response was heartfelt and sincere. If they continue to bring it up I would change the reply to something like, “Look, clearly we both think rape is heinous and demands justice, we can differ as to whether we think it demands someone pay blood, but even if I were to cede that spilling more blood would be just, I cannot agree with you that it should be an innocent person’s blood.”

  • Of course Mourdock’s response was heartfelt and sincere. It was also poorly worded in a politically damaging way as evidenced by RL’s and other’s proposed rewrites. And Mourdock won’t be given the chance to change the reply because the Dems and media will endlessly replay his first comment for the next 2 weeks. At least Akin had the better sense to get his brain spasm at the start of the campaign rather than at the end. And BTW Elaine Krewer’s phrase is all the answer he needed to give. One can only hope voters have matured to the point that sincerity trumps amateurishness.

  • I agree with Donald R McClarey that “predestination and divine foreknowledge” raise very deep and subtle questions.

    That said, If we believe, with Aristotle and all the Scholastics that God is the First Cause and Prime Mover, then even the rape is the result of His (permissive) will. As Bañez says “God, respecting the nature of things, moves necessary agents to necessary, and free agents to free, activity – including sin, except that God is the originator only of its physical entity, not of its formal malice.” For “every act and every movement of the thoroughly contingent secondary causes or creatures must emanate from the First Cause, and that by the application of their potentiality to the act.”

    And, of course, they held that “In this premotion or predetermination is also found the medium of the Divine knowledge by which God’s omniscience foresees infallibly all the future acts, whether absolute or conditional, of intelligent creatures… For just as certainly as God in His predetermined decrees knows His own will, so certainly does He know all the necessarily included determinations of the free will of creatures, be they of absolute or conditional futurity.”

  • I agree that Mourdock’s original statement wasn’t perfect, but I think people are being a tad harsh. It was nowhere near being the sort of cringeworthy gaffe that have sunk other candidates. His meaning was fairly obvious to anyone who doesn’t have an agenda. Certainly candidates for political office need to be especially careful with their language and word choice, but even the best candidates are not going to be machinely efficient robots who make every utterance with precision. I think what he says barely rates a 2 on the gaffe-o-meter.

  • The Democrats nationally are desperate, and well they might be, and therefore they are engaging in the usual ploy of those facing defeat at the polls: busily attempting to build mountains out of molehills.

  • As usual, this site shows how anti-woman it really is. It’s not about love for unborn life, but callousness towards women who suffer brutal sexual crimes. Not too long ago, this site was gloating over the P*ssy Riot members who are now being sent to Soviet-era labor camps. Now, they show heartlessness towards rape victims. There was an article not too long ago in a Catholic magazine that said that consensual s*d*my was somehow WORSE than rape&incest. It’s this dismissive, self-righteous attitude towards women who are victims of horrific crimes that makes pro-lifers look idiotic and shows them incapable of dealing with REAL pain&REAL victims. This is just business as usual- callousness&disregard for real suffering, in the name of love and life.

  • “As usual, this site shows how anti-woman it really is.”

    More than half of all the humans slain in abortion Susan are female. If that isn’t anti-woman what is? The idea that the other innocent victim in a rape, the child conceived as a result, must die for the father’s crime demonstrates how far from any concept of justice the pro-abort mentality you embrace is.

  • I’d like to see Romney distance himself from this: http://youtu.be/jXQL9WLKXMo

  • I will simply note that nowhere does Susan actually make an argument as to why abortion should be permitted in these cases. Rather, she simply emotes and rants about anti-female attitudes (while conveniently disregarding the female commenters on this thread who oppose abortion in these circumstances). Further, her only attempt to bring facts into her rant was a off the mark, as she also conveniently ignores the fact that a majority of the bloggers here actually opposed the actions of the Russian government. Of course that’s a non sequiter anyway, meaning that the entire comment left by Susan is basically full of fail.

  • If I were a politician asked this question I would answer, “The value of your life does not come from the manner of your conception. If you are conceived in a loving marriage that does not mean your life is more valuble than someone else conceived in a one night stand, an adulterous affair, or, God forbid, violent rape. Rape victims need love and healing, not more violence through abortion.”

    Susa, I don’t hate women or rape victims. I don’t think you help a woman heal from rape by adding the added injury (physical, emotional, and spiritual) of abortion.

  • I find few things more annoying, even exasperating, as people – especially pro-life people- saying “they believe life begins at conception.” There is no belief involved but the scientific fact that human life does begin at conception. We need to stop using the ill-suited vocabulary “believe” which fits with the real argument. We believe that human life is sacred, valuable and etc. at all stages.

  • “More than half of all the humans slain in abortion Susan are female. If that isn’t anti-woman what is? ”

    As former abrtionist (who performed late term abortions) truned pro-life advocate Anthony Levantino says “Women’s rights my butt, what about the 750,000 little girls who get ground up in suction machines every year? “

  • Poor Susan. Anti-woman are we?
    Margret Sanger is your enemy Susan, not the people opposed to Sangers eugenics practices.
    How many more lives need be extinguished before the pro-woman camp has their shift in paradigm?
    Hope it happens soon for all of our sake.

  • Susan, the ‘child of rape’ I met is actually helping his mother to resolve nd forgive. He’s doing it now, he’s 44, she’s in her 60’s. I can’t imagine anything less anti-woman than the gentle gratitude he is showing her. I can’t imagine anything more profoundly pro-woman than overcoming the victimization of rape to bring a single good life into the world. I’m not canonizing this mother and son. I simply find their virtuous choices to be heroic. How is that anto-woman. Nothing in this article, Mourdock’s words, or the comments here are anything but pro-woman, and pro-child.

  • His error was in a single word. God “permits” a bad outcome. I don’t ever believe he “intends” it. Furthermore man allows it by sinning and thereby distorting God’s otherwise perfect plan. We’ve been distorting that plan ever since Cain.
    Wonder what the Dems would say about that, or even the Republicans.