re: #10 Dark_Falcon

A very good article on that very point:

(Italics in original.)

The thing is that Akin and Mourdock were just being consistent. If one actually believes that personhood attaches at conception then the circumstances of conception should be irrelevant to the debate on comparative rights.

This is why it makes much more sense to conflate personhood with the capacity for self awareness than with existence, implantation or a heartbeat.

The problem facing the GOP is intrinsic to their dogma, it can’t be fixed by simply avoiding discussions that logically stem from that dogma. Similarly gays and lesbians aren’t going to be won over by refraining from making comparisons of their relationships to bestiality if the GOP continues to oppose their rights and equality of protection under the law. The issue isn’t the egregiously base and mean spirited rhetoric employed by the GOP, conservative operatives and pundits, it’s the underlying principles that the rhetoric stems from.

The article also contains some (at best) half truths:

This was a winnable argument for conservatives: In essence, Fluke expected Catholic institutions to violate their core principles and pay for something they deemed wrong, simply because she really wanted it.

Sandra Fluke paid for her own health insurance. The plan was simply negotiated by the University, and actuarially would have cost more not to cover simple pre-emptive care.