“I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen.”
—Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, in 2012 on his unconditional opposition to abortion (he lost; maybe God intended that, too)
“The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman thinks about the next generation.”
—James Freeman Clarke (U.S. Rep., 1871-1975)
“There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.”
—Will Rogers
Louisiana Voice 
That second one is truly profound. Back when I regularly worked with our elected officials, I knew some actual statesmen (and stateswomen – Lindy Boggs immediately comes to mind). Now I find it difficult to name a respected and altruistic elected official. The closest I can come are John Bel Edwards and Bill Cassidy and they set a pretty low bar compared to statemen of the past. To represent the people one has to be pragmatic – but that doesn’t necessarily mean selling one’s soul (John Neely Kennedy immediately comes to mind).
Will Rogers was a genius.
John Neely Kennedy is so ridiculous that he comes across as a Southern character in a comedy sketch.
Yes, but he’s not funny…embarrassing, but not funny.
Abortion is state sanctioned murder, just like an execution. You might note when a pregnant women is killed, there are two homicide charges, hence, the state is acknowledging a death has occurred.
To support or condone this act is indicative of one’s moral fabric (religion has nothing to do with it), and that is not a positive thing.
Zoe, I understand your position on abortion and I respect that…but you somehow managed to completely miss the point which is this moron’s trying to say that rape was in God’s plan. And make no mistake, that’s precisely what he was saying.
The State has to have permission to take a person’s blood or organ donation, because it infringes on a person’s rights to remove part of his/her body in order to save another person’s life. The State cannot even make a dead person/corpse donate its organs to save another living person’s life. Why should a woman be forced by the State to donate the use of her body to grow another person inside her body at great expense and risk to the pregnant woman? A person cannot be forced to donate blood to save another life that needs a blood transfusion. Is that State sanctioned murder of the person that needs the blood to live. If you don’t think that isn’t State sanctioned murder of the patient that needs a blood transfusion that a matching donor could make with little to no expense or risk, what is your distinction or support for your position? I don’t think a woman should be made to donate the use of her body for another to grow inside her against her wishes. Allowing her to refuse to donate her body, time, wealth and personal health so that another may use her body to grow is a State sanctioned forced slavery, in my view.