Someone please tell me that I was kidnapped, shoved into the delorean, and taken back to 1800, cause there is no way that people are saying this shit now.
Well, at least not what the exact quotes in the thread title say, so you can go back to sleep until your dad gives you the keys to that new Jeep.
What I gather from this thread is: 1) The linked article in the OP is very slanted, right down to the picture of Ryan they used under the title.
2) The title of this thread is inaccurate even to the highly slanted article itself. Surprised it hasn't been fixed yet, but then how much less fun would this thread be?
3) The idea that pro-life supporters don't view rape as an automatic reason to get an abortion is nothing new. You don't have to like it, but this article is fully intended to garner the exact knee-jerk reaction it got in this thread.
What the fuck ever. Just because someone is consistent with a belief I find morally repugnant doesn't mean I have to be all roses and unicorn farts about you. Fred Phelps is pretty goddamn consistent so why don't you go harp on coexisting with that noise.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, for fucks sake. There is a giant middle ground between 'roses and unicorn farts' and openly mocking of a belief system and blatant twisting of words to fit ones own agenda. Fred Phelps is a cute Red herring, BTW. Might as well have thrown out hitler, if you were going to be that fucking obtuse about my point.
“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.
Could he have said this differently? Sure. Maybe rather than "method of conception" he could have referred to "how a child is conceived".
But let's admit it. This article is meant to be inflammatory, so it must change his quote to sound even worse. And even if he said it a different way, I'm sure they would have found a way to make him look worse.
the article does not change his quote. I just posted the video of the actual interview. He says what the article quotes him to say. The headline does not say exactly what he said but the quote used in the article is verbatim from Ryan.
The title of the article is the same as the title of this thread. My point still stands.
The quotation in the subject line of this thread. It never happened. We all know this, yes?
I can only speak for myself but I have been referring to his actual quote (ignoring the headline which I agree is inflammatory).
But do you honestly think the quote was soooooo awful? Like I said, maybe he could have used better wording, but is what he said that bad..? Apparently it wasn't so bad...because it had to be changed in the title!
I find nothing at all surprising about his stance. I am only surprised that people seem to think we should all consider it a non-issue since he doesn't set policy*.
*except for his economic plan.
Excellent point, sbp. Which is it?
Honestly, I'm less alarmed by the Romney I thought I knew than by this new Romney that seems to be lacking in self confidence and trying to ingratiate himself with Trump, Ryan or whoever he thinks represents the rightest of the right wing of his party. THAT Romney scares the hell out of me because I think he's way too eager for approval from the "popular" kids like Ryan. He'll hand over his lunch without a fight.
The pro-choicer in me is cringing, HOWEVER...I don't see how he's at all saying that rape is NBD. Technically, isn't this what we were questioning about the pro-life movement - that if they believe in no abortion under any circumstances, their frame of thinking would be more consistent than if they believed in abortion under some exceptions?
He's saying a life is a life. I can respect that belief even if I don't share those views.
ETA: Whoops, ditto Y4M. Shows how I need to read the thread first!
+1
To my ear, there is no way a pro-lifer can discuss rape without it sounding offensive and crass to those of us who are pro-choice, because the entire concept of being pro-life in a rape scenario is beyond repugnant. However, it's the ideologically consistent opinion and I have more respect for this than pro-lifers who would allow for exceptions but swear up and down that their position has nothing to do with moral judgment of the woman.
I agree with this. I do think that not making an exception for rape does make it more about the fetus than about slut-shaming. It's still not a position I agree with AT ALL.
I think my biggest problem with his comments is that he seems to gloss over the violence of rape. By glossing over the violence of the "method of conception," I think it makes it easier to discount the violence to one's autonomy that occurs if the government forces a woman to carry her rapist's baby.
I'd still disagree with him, but I'd be less bothered if he first acknowledged the trauma to the woman; acknowledged that carrying a rapist's baby could be psychologically, emotionally or even physically difficult for a woman; and then said that he still thinks that life is life and must be protected. I object to the complete focus being on the fetus to the exclusion of any discussion of the harm that has been done and may continue to be done to the woman.
But, of course, that's my biggest problem with anti-abortion policies generally - they elevate the fetus to a status of greater importance than the woman and turn the woman into nothing more than a baby-carrying vessel.
What I gather from this thread is: 1) The linked article in the OP is very slanted, right down to the picture of Ryan they used under the title.
2) The title of this thread is inaccurate even to the highly slanted article itself. Surprised it hasn't been fixed yet, but then how much less fun would this thread be?
3) The idea that pro-life supporters don't view rape as an automatic reason to get an abortion is nothing new. You don't have to like it, but this article is fully intended to garner the exact knee-jerk reaction it got in this thread.
1. For real? What the heck was wrong with the picture, which was just a capture from the interview the piece was about, and looks like every other freaking picture of Paul Ryan? 2. Rape IS just another method of conception, among many. I have no problem with that statement. I do have a problem with Paul's view that the matter of conception is irrelevant. I understand it, but I don't think there's anything positive and pro-life about telling an 11 year old that she must have her father's child and that the details about the conception don't matter. They sure as hell do, just as the details of the aftermath of that birth matter. 3. If an idea is nothing new, how can one have a knee jerk reaction to it? Either you have the same reaction you always have or you don't. You seem to be suggesting this article is working some new angle, but it all seems like the same old debate to me.
It doesn't have to be one or the other, for fucks sake. There is a giant middle ground between 'roses and unicorn farts' and openly mocking of a belief system and blatant twisting of words to fit ones own agenda. Fred Phelps is a cute Red herring, BTW. Might as well have thrown out hitler, if you were going to be that fucking obtuse about my point.
Let me try this again. Since apparently the post I made earlier is invisible or some shit. I don't care what his personal views are. I care that he wants to legislate his personal views for everyone else. And also, that his statement was flippant.
Yeah. I get that...And if you truly felt this was all you were doing, then why respond to my comment at all? It's quite clear that you have no problem twisting his words and calling him an out and out liar based on nothing more than your own bias against him.
Yeah. I get that...And if you truly felt this was all you were doing, then why respond to my comment at all? It's quite clear that you have no problem twisting his words and calling him an out and out liar based on nothing more than your own bias against him.
Perhaps If you set you rage aside for even a moment, you may gain some recollection on your own positions.
Uh, not only is that a completely diferent thread, but it's a completely diffrent topic. I don't for a minute believe ANYBODY who stands firm on one position & consistenyly votes for it & says he will always be that way is just going to up and stop doing it.
That thread is about him saying that he won't legislate his beliefs when it comes to abortion---a point you are arguing In this thread that he will do. So it's completely relevant to your overall tone. Threads don't exist in vacuums, so if you want to be considered at all, stand by your own words.
Yes, rape is a form of conception. Or a form of torture. Or a way to break a person. None of these things are good things. Thats all I have to say about that.