Republicans and Rape

[Smallc]

-

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan

: as (conception by) rape is just another method of conception that doesn't change

the

my definition of life, my no exceptions abortion policy dictates your rape conception must be carried to full term.

Which, given his (stupid) position, makes absolute sense.

[Guest American Woman]

you can choose to continue to be an apologist for Ryan;

I'm not surprised that you are now totally and completely falsely presenting my view, too. Are you unable to stand on your own convictions without falsely presenting the opposing viewpoint?

however, clearly, Ryan's steadfast 'no exceptions' abortion policy... the imposed draconian 'must carry to full term', no exceptions abortion policy, absolutely usurps any/whatever pro-choice interpretations of 'when life begins' there are.

Of course it "usurps any/whatever pro-choice interpretations of 'when life begins'" - because that's not his belief. His "no exceptions abortion policy" is based on his belief that life begins at conception, so it follows that in his view, abortion would be wrong regardless of the circumstances resulting in the conception.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan when asked specifically about rape/abortion exceptions

: "

The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life

".

Interpretation MLW, 'American Woman', objects to

: "Rape is just another ‘method of conception’"

let me be the most obvious of obvious wordsmiths:

-

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan

: as (conception by) rape is just another method of conception that doesn't change

the

my definition of life, my no exceptions abortion policy dictates your rape conception must be carried to full term.

Let me point out one. more. time. that he didn't say what you are claiming he said. He was speaking of abortion and when life begins - saying that regardless of how conception occurred, it's still a life. That the circumstances of the conception don't change that fact.

He didn't say rape is just another way of conceiving - along with consensual sex, fertility pills, in vitro, surrogacy - he wasn't diminishing rape, saying that the act is no different from these other methods; he was saying that the resulting conception is no less a life to him. And quite frankly, it's not. It's not any less a life than a child on this earth is any less a child because of the circumstances surrounding conception.

I can support my pro-choice viewpoint without twisting the point of view of those who oppose it. I can stand my ground without such a need.

So you can choose to continue to misrepresent his viewpoint (and mine), using words that he never even said, or you can argue your viewpoint honestly.

Edited August 26, 2012 by American Woman

[Melanie_]

Another thought...

In agreeing to discuss whether or not abortion should be allowed in the case of rape, we seem to be conceding that it shouldn't be allowed for other reasons. A woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a preganancy doesn't hinge on how that pregnancy came about - somehow the Republicans moved the goalposts when no one was watching.

[Guest American Woman]

Another thought...

In agreeing to discuss whether or not abortion should be allowed in the case of rape, we seem to be conceding that it shouldn't be allowed for other reasons. A woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a preganancy doesn't hinge on how that pregnancy came about - somehow the Republicans moved the goalposts when no one was watching.

Not really. That's been an issue/part of the issue for some time, and I think the Dems are just as 'guilty' as the Repubs for bringing it into the argument; when objecting to abortion, some Dems come back with "even in instances of rape?" - thus we end up with Ryan's viewpoint, which is then twisted into something it's not.

To me, it's either pro-choice or anti-choice - with restrictions placed on viability. If the fetus is viable, then a c-section would end the pregnancy just as well as an abortion would.

[cybercoma]

Here's a newsflash - the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life - which I clearly addressed. I

Here's a newsflash for you, in the context of how he made the comment, it's disgusting. Stop supporting these idiots.

[kimmy]

Another thought...

In agreeing to discuss whether or not abortion should be allowed in the case of rape, we seem to be conceding that it shouldn't be allowed for other reasons. A woman's right to choose whether or not to continue a preganancy doesn't hinge on how that pregnancy came about - somehow the Republicans moved the goalposts when no one was watching.

Excellent observation. After all the discussion about these no-exceptions policies, it almost sounds as if Romney's position is the moderate compromise.

I applaud Ryan for at least having the courage of his convictions. As I've said before... if you believe life begins at conception, then it shouldn't matter how conception occurred. If you believe an abortion kills an innocent person, how can you argue it's acceptable in some circumstances?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Excellent observation. After all the discussion about these no-exceptions policies, it almost sounds as if Romney's position is the moderate compromise.

These discussions are nothing new; it's par for the course in POTUS elections, so Ryan is hardly the first candidate to hold this view. As recently as the last election, McCain/Palin held the same views as Romney/Ryan respectively.

[GostHacked]

So even if you raped someone, now you might be able to get visitation rights to the child that was conceived through rape.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html

It would not be long before I would learn firsthand that in the vast majority of states -- 31 -- men who father through rape are able to assert the same custody and visitation rights to their children that other fathers enjoy. When no law prohibits a rapist from exercising these rights, a woman may feel forced to bargain away her legal rights to a criminal trial in exchange for the rapist dropping the bid to have access to her child.

I don't support giving rapists any kind of visitation rights to the child.

[waldo]

you can choose to continue to be an apologist for Ryan; however, clearly, Ryan's steadfast 'no exceptions' abortion policy... the imposed draconian 'must carry to full term', no exceptions abortion policy, absolutely usurps any/whatever pro-choice interpretations of 'when life begins' there are.

Of course it "usurps any/whatever pro-choice interpretations of 'when life begins'" - because that's not his belief. His "no exceptions abortion policy" is based on his belief that life begins at conception, so it follows that in his view, abortion would be wrong regardless of the circumstances resulting in the conception.

as I said, and most particularly given your self-proclaimed "pro-choice" positioning, you're an apologist for Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan when asked specifically about rape/abortion exceptions

: "

The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life

".

Interpretation MLW, 'American Woman', objects to

: "Rape is just another ‘method of conception’"

let me be the most obvious of obvious wordsmiths:

-

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan

: as (conception by) rape is just another method of conception that doesn't change

the

my

definition of life, my no exceptions abortion policy dictates your rape conception must be carried to full term.

Let me point out one. more. time. that he didn't say what you are claiming he said. He was speaking of abortion and when life begins - saying that regardless of how conception occurred, it's still a life. [waldo: as he, Paul Ryan, defines life, defines human life, defines a human being]. That the circumstances of the conception don't change that fact.

He didn't say rape is just another way of conceiving - along with consensual sex, fertility pills, in vitro, surrogacy - he wasn't diminishing rape, saying that the act is no different from these other methods; he was saying that the resulting conception is no less a life to him. And quite frankly, it's not. It's not any less a life than a child on this earth is any less a child because of the circumstances surrounding conception.

I can support my pro-choice viewpoint without twisting the point of view of those who oppose it. I can stand my ground without such a need.

So you can choose to continue to misrepresent his viewpoint (and mine), using words that he never even said, or you can argue your viewpoint honestly.

just what pro-choice viewpoint do you hold? The one that accepts Ryan's definition of life... of human life... of being a human being, at conception? I suggest you pause and re-think your claim to being pro-choice. The delineations being made around exceptions, in this case rape conception, do not reflect upon the status-quo U.S. abortion laws; quite clearly, the Republicans have an agenda that presumes to change those abortion laws, ultimately on through the constitutional Personhood arguments that, in themselves, are being argued, speculatively, as the vehicle to strike down your Roe vs. Wade decision. Those apparent contradictions in arguing the "exceptions cases", play both ways. Real pro-choice proponents, quite obviously, don't hold to these exceptions; however, in a Republican slippery-slope world, certain allowable exceptions gives way to... no exceptions, none whatsoever - (see Paul Ryan!)... and in that context, most emphatically, Paul Ryan positions rape as simply another means of creating/conceiving his definition of life - and apparently, your definition of life... of human life... of a human being, as well.

[Guest American Woman]

Give me a break and go after Melanie and kimmy, Waldo. Kimmy even applauds Ryan's stand.

Edited August 26, 2012 by American Woman

[waldo]

Give me a break and go after Melanie and kimmy, Waldo. Kimmy even applauds Ryan's stand.

go after? Rather than playing the victim, you could address my latest post... you could start here:

just what pro-choice viewpoint do you hold? The one that accepts Ryan's definition of life... of human life... of being a human being, at conception? I suggest you pause and re-think your claim to being pro-choice.

[Guest American Woman]

go after? Rather than playing the victim, you could address my latest post... you could start here:

Ummmm. No thanks. When this is what I read - "as I said, and most particularly given your self-proclaimed 'pro-choice' positioning, you're an apologist for Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, Paul Ryan" - I realize there's no point in wasting my time and I don't read any further. If you can't even comprehend what I've said, what's the point? Now like I said, go after one of them - because that's what you do. You don't address points, you make it personal, as in accusing me of being an apologist for Ryan, when nothing could be further from the truth - as you give a pass to others who are saying the same thing I am.

As I've said before, I don't play your game.

[kimmy]

Give me a break and go after Melanie and kimmy, Waldo. Kimmy even applauds Ryan's stand.

To be clear, I don't share his views. I just feel that the "no exceptions" stance has more moral consistency than those who'd make exceptions if they have enough sympathy for the woman seeking an abortion.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

To be clear, I don't share his views. I just feel that the "no exceptions" stance has more moral consistency than those who'd make exceptions if they have enough sympathy for the woman seeking an abortion.

I realize that you don't share his views, and clearly I don't either; and I agree with you about the "no exceptions" stance, which is why I said it's consistent with his beliefs. My post wasn't directed at you in any way - it was directed at Waldo.

[waldo]

just what pro-choice viewpoint do you hold? The one that accepts Ryan's definition of life... of human life... of being a human being, at conception? I suggest you pause and re-think your claim to being pro-choice.

Ummmm. No thanks. If you can't even comprehend what I've said, what's the point?

I comprehend exactly what you've said... in your own words:

he was saying that the

resulting conception

is no less a life to him.

And quite frankly, it's not. It's not any less a life than a child on this earth is any less a child because of the circumstances surrounding conception.

you are accepting to Ryan's definition of life, of human life, of a human being... beginning at conception. The context of Ryan's statement was in regards to abortion... allowable exceptions to abortion. In that context, Ryan accepts no exceptions... and in his definition of when life/human life/a human being begins, he views rape as simply another way conception is realized.

-

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan when asked specifically about rape/abortion exceptions

: "

The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life

".

ergo

-

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan

: as (conception by) rape is just another method of conception that doesn't change

the

my definition of life, my no exceptions abortion policy dictates your rape conception must be carried to full term.

again, what pro-choice viewpoint do you hold?

[Guest American Woman]

I comprehend exactly what you've said... in your own words:

That's as far as I read. Again. I don't play your game.

[waldo]

That's as far as I read. Again. I don't play your game.

no game - you've been asked repeatedly to state your self-proclaimed pro-choice viewpoint/position. It would be helpful to understand/reference it, particularly given your resolve to champion, rather than call out, Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan's definition of life/human life/a human being, tied to conception... irregardless of the ways/means conception may be realized.

[Guest American Woman]

no game - you've been asked repeatedly....

And you've been told repeatedly that I don't play your game. I'm not biting. Move on to someone else.

[waldo]

And you've been told repeatedly that I don't play your game. I'm not biting. Move on to someone else.

the only game being played is yours. In any case, not a problem... your own words speak for your reluctance to fully qualify your most contradicting, self-proclaimed, pro-choice viewpoint/position:

he was saying that the

resulting conception

is no less a life to him.

And quite frankly, it's not. It's not any less a life than a child on this earth is any less a child because of the circumstances surrounding conception.

you are accepting to Ryan's definition of life, of human life, of a human being... beginning at conception. The context of Ryan's statement was in regards to abortion... allowable exceptions to abortion. In that context, Ryan accepts no exceptions... and in his definition of when life/human life/a human being begins, he views rape as simply another way conception is realized.

[cybercoma]

I was talking to a woman whom I deeply respect earlier this week about the Akin comments and backlash. She raised a very interesting point. She was saying, the backlash was directed towards the damage his comments did to the Republican Party, rather than being directed at how damaging what he said is to women. It's an important observation that underlines how our culture turns a blind eye to violence against women and their subjugation more generally. The damage to a political party is more important than the damage his comments did to human beings.

[waldo]

I was talking to a woman whom I deeply respect earlier this week about the Akin comments and backlash. She raised a very interesting point. She was saying, the backlash was directed towards the damage his comments did to the Republican Party, rather than being directed at how damaging what he said is to women. It's an important observation that underlines how our culture turns a blind eye to violence against women and their subjugation more generally. The damage to a political party is more important than the damage his comments did to human beings.

it's as if U.S. Republicans are living in some type of bizzaro world. I was watching a few talking heads this morning and a so-called 'Republican analyst' was being taken to task over the abortion specific language within the Republican Party platform - of course, given this recent weeks frenzy over the Akin/Ryan comments, the focus was on abortion exceptions and the Republican Party platform that holds to NO exceptions... NONE, whether for incest, rape, or the life of the mother. The guy had the temerity to state the Republican party was simply affirming its status as the "Pro-Life Party"... and that this was completely divorced from the Courts, Congress, respective U.S. States and the U.S. populace, in terms of procedural steps required to actually ratify and adopt the Republican Party platform's abortion specific language.

[Bitsy]

These discussions are nothing new; it's par for the course in POTUS elections, so Ryan is hardly the first candidate to hold this view. As recently as the last election, McCain/Palin held the same views as Romney/Ryan respectively.

Please tell me your understanding of Romney/Ryan position on abortion. Thanks, I am reading so many conflicting reports, I would like to know how others view their policy position.

[Guest American Woman]

Please tell me your understanding of Romney/Ryan position on abortion. Thanks, I am reading so many conflicting reports, I would like to know how others view their policy position.

From my understanding, Romney supports abortion when the mother's life is endangered, and also in cases of incest and rape. Ryan believes life begins at conception, it's morally wrong to take a life, and therefore he is against abortion even in cases of incest and rape, but thinks exceptions should be made if the mother's life is at risk. Ryan says that they are running on Romney's plan since he is the presidential candidate - but of course sometimes the VP does become president, so I don't easily dismiss the VP viewpoint.

As a totally different side note, which just occurred to me now, I'd be interested to hear Ryan's take on Capital Punishment.

[Black Dog]

Close r to home for some of us Canucks, the mayor of Toronto's niece set off a mini crapstorm when she suggested on twitter that women could avoid being sexually assaulted by "not dressing like whores." (Not relevant, but interesting is this is the same woman who first made headlines through her involvement in a Lingerie Football League; how the Ford's don't have a TLC reality show a la Honey Boo Boo remains a mystery.) She apologized, but cobweb-dusted National Post columnist barbara kay rose from her crypt to trot out a "defense" of Ford, arguing, essentially, that dressing like a whore means you're asking to be sexually assaulted. Seriously.

Mark my words, please. I did not say dressing like a whore is an invitation to sexual assault. I said dressing like a whore – that is, dressing like the kind of woman whose professional sartorial fashion sense is premised on the need to maximize male lust – is to send a message that extremely high sexual interest from males is not only welcome, but very welcome.

But what if you're women who wants to avoid dressing like a whore so as to avoid getting the sexual attention you're obviously asking for? How would you know what constitues acceptable dress? I guess you'll have to ask Babs:

Dressing like a slut – and nobody has to define it; we know it when we see it

Edited August 31, 2012 by Black Dog

[bleeding heart]

cobweb-dusted National Post columnist barbara kay rose from her crypt to trot out a "defense" of Ford,

Well done.

I had actually forgotten about that sanctimonious reactionary.

Edited August 31, 2012 by bleeding heart