Stupid phrasing that is an absolute gift to his challenger, but fistful and Jocassee have already covered what he was trying to say. He wasn't in any way condoning rape or saying his God approves of it, just that it does not (in his eyes) decrease the value of a human life thus conceived.
The whole rape-abortion argument isn't really the point anyway. Very few pro-abortionists would approve of the casual killing of a child after they are born for any reason - even if they were conceived when their mother was raped by a Nazi GOP lawyer. Moreover, very few of those who play the rape-abortion card, the incest card or the medical necessity card want to limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or medical necessity. It's a foot-in-the-door towards a more general policy of allowing abortion.
What it all comes down to is the fact that anti-abortion types and pro-abortion types have a fundamentally different understanding of when life becomes human. Indeed, there is a whole continuum of understanding on that subject.
Maybe because deep-down, or not so deep, the Republican Party doesn't really believe in liberty any more than the Democrat party does...?
Of course they don't. They believe in obtaining and maintaining power.
My wife brought up a good point the other day: If the Libertarians ever achieve significant power, they would likely become just as corrupt and anti-liberty in their own various ways as the other parties very quickly - the only reason they are able to claim the moral high ground is because they don't have any power.
