Apparently, some of the blogosphere is atwitter about Paul Ryan and his use of the phrase “method of conception”. You can find one link to it here. Caution: autoplay video.
They start by talking about Akin and how Ryan feels about the comments that Akin made. Around the 1:00 mark, Ryan says that he’s proud of his position on abortion and that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.
The author points out in all caps that Ryan believes “RAPE=METHOD OF CONCEPTION”. Well, it is, isn’t it? It’s the most hideous means imagineable but it is still the means of conception. Ryan clearly wasn’t advocating rape and he goes on to say that Romney approves of abortion exceptions for rape and incest. Why is “method of conception” so objectionable?
Not advocating rape obviously, but saying that abortion shouldn’t be banned even in the case of rape. I don’t think he’s ever said that explicitly before (previously, IIRC, he drew a distinction between forcible rape and non), so assuming that’s what he meant, it would be something of a big deal.
Obviously how “objectionable” one finds that depends on how one feels about abortion in the case of rape. But polls show most people want, at the least, abortion to be legal in such a case.
It is the equivalent of a politician talking about a soldier being beheaded by enemies on video, and saying that “The method of death doesn’t matter as long as he gets a proper Christian burial.”
I think it’s that his statement minimizes rape so much. It’s like saying a hurricane is another type of rain storm. The statement is technically true, but minimizes the damage that it does.
Also, I’m guessing the outcry would be less if this was the first statement Ryan had said about abortion. But Ryan has a history of being extremely anti-choice, and showing little compassion for women. Some pro-life people can be against abortion, but still see women as humans and have compassion for the difficult position they are in. But Ryan doesn’t seem to take women into consideration at all. He has an essay on his website about abortion but doesn’t mention the words mother or women at all in it.
It’s tacky, but I’m not sure this is a substantive objection. His meaning was clear enough and he wasn’t dismissing or downplaying rape. He was saying it doesn’t matter if the conception was the result of rape. What people actually object to is his position on abortion and they might as well just say that instead of criticizing him for his phrasing.
I’m with Marley (and others). Paul Ryan believes that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape. Full stop. That’s all folks need to focus on, not his phrasing.
This is absolutely correct, if that is in fact your belief about a fetus. And I believe that this was Ryan’s position, until being picked by Romney.
Given this belief, his support of Romney’s position that abortion should be allowed in case of rape means that he is in fact condoning the murder of tens of thousands or millions of innocents just to get the job of Vice President.
Maybe there are other quotes but from the video in the OP, I believe that Ryan still disagrees with Romney’s stance but considers it an “improvement” over the current situation.
While I disagree with Ryan, this is the only anti-choice position I grudgingly accept because I find it more consistent. The position I find more hypocritical and ugly is the one that allows the rape exception. They say that every life is sacred but when they make an exception for rape, they’re demonstrating that all they actually care about is punishing women who have sex. If every life is sacred, and if life starts at conception, then yes: the method of conception and the circumstances surrounding the conception are irrelevant. His phrasing was cold, but I don’t think he said anything wrong this time.
If you believe life starts at conception, then why do you make an exception for rape? Surely protecting that life is more important than sparing the mother’s feelings? Do you believe in the death penalty for children of any other kind of criminal? What if a woman discovers she’s carrying the child of a serial killer - is it ok to kill that life because the mother is now distressed about carrying that baby and the father is a criminal?
Either because you understand rape is horrible or because you know the rest of society finds that position more tolerable. Ryan is relying on the second one when he says huge restrictions on abortion would be a big improvement even if it doesn’t get them all the way to their goal.
Rape is horrible, but if you genuinely believe that the fetus is a person and should have all the rights of a person, how can you take those rights away just to spare the mother’s distress? Those people should be saying “Well, yes, we understand these nine months are going to be horribly, unimaginably distressing for you, but you can adopt the baby out at the end if you don’t want to parent it and we don’t feel this person should be denied the 80 years of life they could on average expect to live in order to spare you distress”.
This is exactly why we shouldn’t give fetuses the rights of the already-born, but it’s consistent and not hypocritical. I realise your second reason is most likely to be politicians and lobbyists motivation, but I’ve met ordinary people who think the same way and don’t see the contradiction.
I’m not overly concerned about his terminology, though his overall attitude of indifference toward the concerns of the woman is something I find short-sighted, if not reprehensible, and that would be true even without this specific statement.
Here’s why I think people object. “Method of conception” is very mechanical, and dehumanizes the situation. Notice that in all these discussions Ryan and his ilk try their best to remove the woman from the discussion. To consider this issue we need to balance the “right” of the fetus to be born with the right of the woman to have control of her body. If you remove the woman from the equation, the “right” of the fetus clearly seems predominant.
If you replace “the method of conception should not influence the decision” with
“the forcible impregnation of a woman against her will should not influence the decision” people’s visceral reactions will be much different.
So Ryan used that term for a very good (or bad!) reason.