"Method of conception" is a no no. What should Ryan have said?

[Voyager]

@Terr

Abortions do not involve “a single celled organism with human DNA”.

So, when does it become human? Two cells? Four? Eight?

When it leaves for college, if you ask me.

[Voyager]

@Terr

Exactly my point.

Great. I will never try to force you to get directly involved with abortions, and you keep your hands off my daughters’ rights.

[Terr]

@Voyager

That would be you. He recognizes that different people have different views of this truth, and should be allowed to act on those views.

It’s fine and dandy to have different views on things, until it results in dead human beings.

[Terr]

@Voyager

So, when does it become human? Two cells? Four? Eight?

You tell me. Can you draw a line?

And abortions do not involve two-celled organisms. Or four-celled. Or eight-celled.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Fine, a million cells. Ten million. Whatever. Whether it’s human or not, it’s in the uterus of an unwilling host.

[Untoward_Parable]

I don’t care about his phrasing much, I’m happy if it hurts his chances of being vice president or ever elected again of course. The critical thing is the actual viewpoints he holds. Which are batcrap insane.

These people want to have government take control of a woman’s life because they believe that a 4 celled microbe with human DNA has a soul and in a god that will allow those souls some cheated destiny based on circumstances completely out of their control. It’s nonsense. Not only is it nonsense but it’s theocratic. They think that their religious view should define the lives of people without their religious views down to the structure of their families.

if they believe this stuff fine. Convince people to share their views. Government coercion of religious practices is what makes a society unworthy of existing. As many proponents of religion have asserted: government coercion of religion cheapens religion and ensures far larger numbers of people falsely pretending to be a member of your faith. Your church becomes a hoax.

And ya. It’s always been about punishing women for dishonoring their parents and husbands. The rape thing is just down the rabbit hole absolutists taken to their illogical and horrific ends.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@Eliahna

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.

That’s a very binary view, and false. It’s possible to believe that a fetus is not quite a fully fledged person, but still a being with value. The acceptability of abortion then depends on a “least worst” calculation that balances the rights of the woman with that of the fetus. This balance may shift on factors such as whether the pregnancy was initiated with her consent.

[Der_Trihs]

@Terr

Their opinion is that a fetus is a human being.

Irrelevant, since calling it a “human being” doesn’t change it from being a mindless piece of tissue.

@Terr

Since you (both singular and plural) cannot define the exact point at which fetus becomes a human being (and I don’t mean “legally”), both your opinion on when that happens and theirs are equally valid (or equally invalid, if you prefer).

Nonsense. Unlike mine, their opinion is based on fantasy and malice, and simply doesn’t hold up under examination. Nor do they actually adhere to their own alleged principles.

@Terr

You tell me. Can you draw a line?

No. In the real world there are seldom such neat clean lines. However; the existence of twilight doesn’t invalidate the existence of night and day. The fact that we can’t pin down an exact line where a blob of tissue becomes a person doesn’t mean that the blob is a person from the start any more than it means that a 30 year old guy is just a lump of meat because he started out that way.

[Terr]

@Der_Trihs

No. In the real world there are seldom such neat clean lines. However; the existence of twilight doesn’t invalidate the existence of night and day. The fact that we can’t pin down an exact line where a blob of tissue becomes a person doesn’t mean that the blob is a person from the start any more than it means that a 30 year old guy is just a lump of meat because he started out that way.

But you draw an arbitrary line and decide that before it it’s a “blob of tissue” and after it it’s a person. Anti-abortion people also draw an arbitrary line, it’s just earlier than your arbitrary line.

[gamerunknown]

@Same Stone

Since social conservatism is the least-popular part of the Republican’s platform…

Since when?

Check out the polling on Medicare reform or Vouchers. Compare to trends on pro-life or pro-choice. According to a cite adaher posted, abortion is not a litmus test. So why do Democrats pursue it so doggedly? Well, since Ryan is Catholic and thus personally cannot abide by contraception and considers the morning after pill an abortificant, he’s pretty far to the right on that issue. I take a cynical view too: I think it’s the one issue on which the Democrats are significantly different to the Republicans as a bloc. To quote Chomsky:

@Chomsky

In the United States, the political system is a very marginal affair. There are two parties, so-called, but they’re really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices. In the 1984 election, for example, there was actually an issue, which often there isn’t. The issue was Keynesian growth versus fiscal conservatism. The Republicans were the party of Keynesian growth: big spending, deficits, and so on. The Democrats were the party of fiscal conservatism: watch the money supply, worry about the deficits, et cetera. Now, I didn’t see a single comment pointing out that the two parties had completely reversed their traditional positions. Traditionally, the Democrats are the party of Keynesian growth, and the Republicans the party of fiscal conservatism. So doesn’t it strike you that something must have happened? Well, actually, it makes sense. Both parties are essentially the same party. The only question is how coalitions of investors have shifted around on tactical issues now and then. As they do, the parties shift to opposite positions, within a narrow spectrum.

@Sam Stone

Is he particularly active in social conservatism?

He’s not particularly active anywhere.

@Damuri Ajashi

You can draw a line between abortions of pregnancies taht result from rape and abortions of pregnancies that are the result of consensual sex.

Yes, but any woman seeking an abortion did not desire a child. Whether they were raped, whether their contraception failed, whether they were caught up in the moment, or whether their financial situation is no longer viable to support a child, whether they were subject to abstinence only education…

All of them are attached to an unwanted violinist. Some of them left the door unlocked.

[monavis]

@Marley23

Nonsense. That’s the line the GOP has been pushing on him for a couple of years, but he’s not any kind of policy wonk. He’s an ideologue.

The bill was the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and it means the answer to your question is “Are you kidding? Yes.” The U.S. government already bans the funding of abortions with taxpayer money. The bill would have also banned abortions in any health care facility operated by the government or by any physician employed by the government, and in its original form it would have banned abortions even for some patients who had been raped.

John McCain has never been considered a “social warrior.”
No, he wants to focus on the economy because he believes that’s the issue most likely to get him elected, and it may be. He has never said he has no interest in these social issues, and to win the nomination he’s adopted a more conservative attitude on those same issues. In any event we also heard a lot of Tea Party members insist in 2010 that they were only interested in fiscal sanity and not in the culture war. Then they got elected and started moving to defund Planned Parenthood and passing laws like the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I’m not sympathetic to anyone who fell for this once, but nobody should be fooled by it twice. The Republican Party is as conservative as ever on social issues if not moreso.

Yes, and I wonder why they keep talking about our Freedoms, when they do not want a person to have freedom in their own homes, or personal freedoms. As long as a person isn’t harming anyone, what goes on in the privacy of ones own life should be no one else’s business. Many who picket others do so, so they can force their beliefs on others. It is my opinion they are like the Pharisees, they are so busy worrying about how others live they don’t see the plank in their own eyes. Then they like to call them selves Christain and thinks that makes them better than others.

[monavis]

@Sitnam

Which is irrelevant to your comparison.

Bolding mine.

For your analogy to be relevant concerning a ‘rape fetus’, you can only consider adoption if it is also possible to remove a fetus and transfer it to a willing womb. Which isn’t currently possible as far as I know.

So it stands, may a parent evict a child minor out of their house since, as you say, it’s about property rights?

When it becomes a child is one thing, when it is just a fertile egg is another.

[monavis]

@Terr

Yes, in areas of conflict I prefer to go with the option of saving human lives. You obviously disagree.

Does that mean you are willing to sacrifice your own needs, and that of any children if you may have, to feed and care for the born children in countries where they starve to death a slow death,or all the children in this country who go with out the proper care etc.? are you willing to pay higher taxes to see they are cared for once born?

[Steve_MB]

@Eliahna

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?

Simple – just start with the two premises that guide Ryan’s policies in general:

Premise 1: The “rights of a person” do not include the right to support at another person’s expense.

Premise 2: A peson’s inability to be self-sufficient does not create an exception to Premise 1.

[Steve_MB]

@Terr

Which is fine if you think that fetus is not a human being. But if you do think that a fetus is a human being, then letting the mother decide is condoning murder.

Nonsense. By this “logic”, allowing me to blow off a plea for organ donation (including organs that I happen to be using at the moment and need to continue using) is to condone murder.

[Enkel]

@Terr

Can you quote his statement on the “so happy” part?

Any video of this statement (statement taken from: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/24/ryan-on-abortion-exceptions-rape-is-just-another-method-of-conception/ )

“I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,” Ryan explained. “But let’s remember, I’m joining the Romney-Ryan ticket. And the president makes policy.”

“And the president, in this case the future President Mitt Romney, has exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother, which is a vast improvement of where we are right now.”

Again, this isn’t a tax or entitlements issue. It isn’t like debating if Ayn Rand is his favorite author.

His stated belief is that abortion is taking the life of a human being. People are throwing around the number of more than 32,000 rape-babies a year. At least Palin stuck to her guns on the campaign trail.

[Terr]

@monavis

Does that mean you are willing to sacrifice your own needs, and that of any children if you may have, to feed and care for the born children in countries where they starve to death a slow death,or all the children in this country who go with out the proper care etc.? are you willing to pay higher taxes to see they are cared for once born?

I do what I can. Are you willing to “sacrifice” the needs of your children for others?

[Terr]

@Enkel

Any video of this statement (statement taken from: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/24/ryan-on-abortion-exceptions-rape-is-just-another-method-of-conception/ )

You claimed that Ryan is “so happy” to support Romney’s point of view. You didn’t give me any cite for the “so happy” part.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bryan_Ekers

Yeah, but it betrays clumsy thinking.

So does Obama’s “52 states” blooper. Doesn’t say much about the candidate.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

So does Obama’s “52 states” blooper.

Actually, it was “57 states”, and no, the situations are not comparable.