Paul Ryan, Radical Pro-Lifer

Michelle Goldberg’s piece at the Daily Beast gets the basics down. Here’s the key part:

If this were to become general knowledge, it would be hard for me to understand why any woman outside the Crazy 27%* would vote for him. And I would hope that any man outside the Crazy 27% would be embarrassed and ashamed to let his woman friends know that he was considering voting for a ticket including Ryan.
*The Crazy 27%: the approximate percentage of the population that never stopped supporting Nixon during Watergate, never stopped approving of the job Bush Jr. was doing as President during the last years of his presidency, etc. Basically, the percentage of the population that will never abandon a candidate, position, etc. because it’s too far right.

I read, in passing, a claim that Ryan would ‘outlaw some common forms of birth control’…I didn’t get to see what forms were referred to, specifically. I suppose it was referring to the ‘morning after’ pill, or does he also oppose more commons forms?

Ah, the Crazification Factor:

As to why people would vote for someone who is pro-life, I suspect you know that answer. They are pro-life also. If you can accept that some people really believe that abortion is ending a human life their opposition to it, even in the cases of rape, is logical.

Now, I’m pro-choice, so I’m not going to defend that position. But, to call them “crazy” simply for disagreeing with you seems a bit much.

Plenty of other pro-choice people such as me are going to vote for a ticket with Ryan on it because abortion really doesn’t matter as an issue now. The debate has moved so far to the left it’s no longer about “should abortion be legal” but “should every taxpayer have to pay for funding the abortions”.

If Roe was overturned then it would matter again as the states and probably the fed level would start passing various laws. But, since that’s not looking likely, I think most people don’t count abortion high on their list of issues when considering a vote.

That’s not true at all. Abortions are harder and harder to get all the time.

Very, very false. There have been a record number of anti-abortion bills passed in 2011. Don’t pretend the debate has moved left, the right has been quietly enacting this crap since 2010 on the state level and introducing them on the federal level as well.

It’s do to his support of ‘personhood amendments.’ It certainly includes the morning after pill. Legal experts expect it would also include the ‘pill.’ There is some grey area here because there is a disconnect between understanding biology and people supporting the bill.

I’ve always agreed with the logic of it, but the fact is that many people who consider themselves pro-life are in favor of exemptions for rape, incest, and serious threats to the physical health of the mother. My wife, for instance, is solidly pro-life, but she’s adamantly against any court or legislature being in a position to make her choice for her if she were impregnated as the result of rape.

Hell, even very few pro-life women who are much more strongly so than my wife is are going to say to their husbands, “if it comes down to saving me or my baby, flip a coin, dear, because my life and my baby’s are equally important.” When push comes to shove, just about all of us believe that the life of the already-born mother is more important than that of the yet-to-be-born fetus.

IOW, pretty much everybody agrees that the value of the life of the unborn fetus, even well after the point of viability, is less than that of an already-born person.

You misunderstand me. I wasn’t saying they were crazy for disagreeing with me on this issue. I was saying that there’s a hard core of roughly 27% of the American people who will vote for any right-wing candidate, no matter how far out his/her beliefs are, and who will support any right-wing measure, no matter how radical.

And those people will be OK with Ryan’s unusually extreme (even compared with other pro-lifers) pro-life stance.

They support it because they’re crazy, not the other way around.

I hate to use what’s become a cliche, but what color IS the sky in your universe?

  1. Abortion very much matters as an issue right now. Ruth Bader Ginsburg turns 80 in seven months; the next President stands a good chance of appointing her replacement. If Romney is elected and replaces Ginsburg with a Justice committed to overturning Roe, then both Roberts and Kennedy would have to vote to uphold Roe (a longshot at best) in order to keep it in place - and Kennedy will turn 80 during the next Presidential Administration as well.

The future of abortion as a right totally hinges on this election.

  1. Give me a for-instance of a Federal tax dollar paying for an abortion, other than rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother?

They said that in 2000, and we had eight years of Bush with no focus on abortion laws at all.

Regarding the SCOTUS and Roe, I’m one of many pro-choice people who would cheer it’s repeal. The constitution doesn’t prohibit abortion and the main reason why it’s been such a messy topic for so long is that the SCOTUS obviously overreached with Roe.

I’d prefer a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, myself.

Planned parenthood, accounting gimmicks aside, gets funding and provides abortions. But, you know this.

Of course there’s been an uptick since the conservatives took over.

But, ask yourself: Who’s been winning more battles on abortion in the past few decades? It’s clear that the pro-lifers have been marginalized and repeatedly defeated.

Did you even read the links I posted? Who’s winning the battles? It’s the pro-lifers who have been passing abortion-restricting legislation. And Planned Parenthood gets funding to provide health care and family planning services, and are prohibited from using that funding to provide abortions. But, you knew that.

An “uptick”? You have a droll way with words.

It must be my day for having to ask what color the sky is in various posters’ universes. Maybe there has been essentially no change in the status of abortion rights at the Federal level since the Hyde Amendment was passed, but at that level it’s pretty much all or nothing.

But at the state level, many laws have been passed in recent decades restricting or burdening the right to an abortion, and if anything, the pace is picking up. If that’s what ‘marginalized and repeatedly defeated’ looks like, then please marginalize and defeat me, OK?

The difference now is that there are four clear votes for overturning Roe. Unless one of them changes their minds, Roe is dead if Ginsburg retires during a Romney administration.

People who say they’re for X, then advocate changes that would work against X in a big way in practice - are they really for X?

I’d personally say not. I think that’s sophistry. It’s all nice to say you’re for abortion rights but you want the cow to jump over the moon first.

Cow. Moon.

Suppose you gave me $100 to give to a particular charity. I proceeded to buy $100 worth of dope, and pay $100 to the charity you requested. Let’s say I didn’t keep track of which particular greenbacks (or electrons) went where. Were you supporting my dope habit?

I’ll change it a bit:

If you spend $100 a day on dope, but also give $100 to charity from time to time, yes, I’m supporting your dope habit if most of your money comes from me. Even if technically I’m giving you less or the same money that you spend on charity, you’d still at least have to choose between charity and dope if not for my contributions.

I want abortions to be legal and available. But, we should be able to do that without forcing the pro-lifers to pay for it.

You still haven’t demonstrated that pro-lifers are paying for it. People getting abortions are paying for them. Pro-lifers are paying for health care facilities. Any costs associated with the abortion are already explicitly prohibited from being paid using federal funds. And around and around we go.

I’m sorry, but I can’t make head or tail of this particular analogy. (Run out and get me a four year old child. :))

I don’t see how they are. Just because money is fungible is not evidence for that claim.

You know perfectly well that a constitutional amendment making abortion legal would never get throught Congress and if by some miracle it did, it would never make it throught ratification by the States. Remember the E.R.A.?

I disagree that the Supreme court over-reached. Allowing others to have control over every women’s reproductive organs is a violation of every human right ever conceived

It strikes me as involuntary servitude.

Pro-choice person who thinks the court overstepped on Roe checking it.

Overturning Roe would send the abortion issue back to the states, where it belongs. Perhaps a few states would make abortions illegal, but I’m not even sure about that. South Dakota, one of the most conservatives states on the issue, “outlawed” abortion through the legislature recently, but that was overturned by a popular vote on an initiative.

However, I do agree with the OP’s characterization of Ryan. His position is radical, although I find it more logically consistent than someone who claims that human life (personhood) begins at conception but who thinks it’s OK to abort a fetus which is the product of rape. And I find the idea of abortion being legal for incest to be absurdly illogical for a pro-life person. A father having sex with his underage daughter is rape, and there is no need to invoke incest, which can be consensual.

Do you favor abortion on demand at any point during pregnancy, up to the time of delivery?