# Paul Ryan, Radical Pro-Lifer **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 13, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376 "2012-08-13T14:17:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/1 "2012-08-13T14:17:16Z")
Michelle Goldberg’s [piece at the Daily Beast](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-s-extreme-abortion-views.html) gets the basics down. Here’s the key part: > [@](#): > > [Ryan] believes ending a pregnancy should be illegal even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health. He was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a federal bill defining fertilized eggs as human beings…Ryan also expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sicks\_Ate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Sicks\_Ate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sicks_Ate)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/2 "2012-08-13T14:37:54Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/3 "2012-08-13T15:10:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > \*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. Ah, the [Crazification Factor](http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazification.html): > [@](#): > > **John:** Hey, Bush is now at 37% approval. I feel much less like Kevin McCarthy screaming in traffic. But I wonder what his base is – > \*\* > Tyrone:\*\* 27%. > > **John:** … you said that immediately, and with some authority. > > **Tyrone** : Obama vs. Alan Keyes. Keyes was from out of state, so you can eliminate any established political base; both candidates were black, so you can factor out racism; and Keyes was plainly, obviously, completely crazy. Batshit crazy. Head-trauma crazy. But 27% of the population of Illinois voted for him. They put party identification, personal prejudice, whatever ahead of rational judgement. Hell, even like 5% of Democrats voted for him. That’s crazy behaviour. I think you have to assume a 27% Crazification Factor in any population. > > **John:** Objectively crazy or crazy vis-a-vis my own inertial reference frame for rational behavior? I mean, are you creating the Theory of Special Crazification or General Crazification? > > **Tyrone:** Hadn’t thought about it. Let’s split the difference. Half just have worldviews which lead them to disagree with what you consider rationality even though they arrive at their positions through rational means, and the other half are the core of the Crazification – either genuinely crazy; or so woefully misinformed about how the world works, the bases for their decision making is so flawed they may as well be crazy. > > **John:** You realize this leads to there being over 30 million crazy people in the US? > > **Tyrone:** Does that seem wrong? > > **John:** … a bit low, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/4 "2012-08-13T15:16:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/5 "2012-08-13T15:24:09Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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”. That’s not true at all. Abortions are harder and harder to get all the time. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/6 "2012-08-13T15:31:30Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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”. Very, very false. There have been a [record number of anti-abortion bills passed in 2011](http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html/). Don’t pretend the debate has moved left, the right has been [quietly enacting this crap since 2010](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-04-06-1Aabortion06_ST_N.htm) on the state level and introducing them on the [federal level as well.](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/abortion/5897) ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/7 "2012-08-13T15:52:52Z")
> [@Sicks\_Ate](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/8 "2012-08-13T15:56:36Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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”. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/9 "2012-08-13T16:47:28Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The future of abortion as a right **totally** hinges on this election. 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. > [@](#): > > 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? Planned parenthood, accounting gimmicks aside, gets funding and provides abortions. But, you know this. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/10 "2012-08-13T16:48:57Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Very, very false. There have been a [record number of anti-abortion bills passed in 2011](http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2012/01/05/endofyear.html/). 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. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/11 "2012-08-13T16:56:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/12 "2012-08-13T18:07:55Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Of course there’s been an uptick since the conservatives took over. … An “uptick”? You have a droll way with words. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/13 "2012-08-13T18:31:37Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/14 "2012-08-13T18:44:00Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > They said that in 2000, and we had eight years of Bush with no focus on abortion laws at all. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > I’d prefer a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, myself. Cow. Moon. > [@](#): > > Planned parenthood, accounting gimmicks aside, gets funding and provides abortions. But, you know this. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/15 "2012-08-13T18:51:04Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/16 "2012-08-13T18:54:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/17 "2012-08-13T19:21:43Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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’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 want abortions to be legal and available. But, we should be able to do that without forcing the pro-lifers to pay for it. I don’t see how they are. Just because money is fungible is not evidence for that claim. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/18 "2012-08-13T19:57:34Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > 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. 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 ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/19 "2012-08-13T21:18:24Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > … > 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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376/20 "2012-08-13T22:39:43Z")
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. > [@davidm](#): > > It strikes me as involuntary servitude. Do you favor abortion on demand at any point during pregnancy, up to the time of delivery? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/paul-ryan-radical-pro-lifer/631376.md?page=2)