Paul Ryan: Rape Just Another Method Of Conception

August 27, 2012

Comments

Presumptive Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan apparently didn’t get the memo from Boston about not talking about abortion in the wake of the Todd Akin controversy:

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions.

During an interview with WJHL this week, Ryan was asked his view about Rep. Todd Akin, who recently asserted that women could not get pregnant from “legitimate rape.”

“Specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s raped?” WJHL reporter Josh Smith wondered.

“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.”

Steve Benen comments:

Why is Mitt Romney trying to shut down media discussion of this topic? Probably because of answers like these.

In this case, when Ryan says “the method of conception” is irrelevant, he’s talking about rape. In other words, the Republicans’ vice presidential nominee clearly believes the government should force women to take their pregnancy to term if they are impregnated by a rapist. Republicans can only distance themselves so much from Todd Akin before we realize they share his views.

But, he adds, his perspective isn’t terribly important, because he’d only be vice president, and Romney isn’t inclined to be as extreme as Ryan is. It’s not like vice presidents ever get elevated to the presidency, right? (Nine of the nation’s 44 chief executives were vice presidents who got elevated to the presidency during their term.)

I’m actually surprised that we haven’t seen more about this in the media given that the interview took place Friday. Possibly this is because of the approach of Isaac and the Republican National Convention. If that’s the case, Ryan and the Romney campaign should, I think consider themselves lucky.

Here’s the interview, the relevant section starts about 45 seconds in:

97 responses to “Paul Ryan: Rape Just Another Method Of Conception”

Drew

August 27, 2012 at 12:07 pm

What sort of position is “I believe all abortions are murder and should be treated that way under the law… but I’m a team player, so I’m not going to worry about it on this ticket”?
sam

August 27, 2012 at 12:12 pm

his perspective isn’t terribly important, because he’d only be vice president and Romney isn’t inclined to be as extreme as Ryan is

“Vote of us. I may be a raving loon, but he’s not.”
sam

August 27, 2012 at 12:13 pm

er, for, for pete’s sake…
Franklin

August 27, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Personally, I think that the view Paul Ryan has on this subject is more internally consistent. The only problem, of course, being that it’s incredibly cold-hearted to the point of being non-human.
Jenos Idanian #13

August 27, 2012 at 12:18 pm

He has a point. From the fetus’ perspective, the circumstances of its conception are totally irrelevant.

And I read an interesting observation. Rape is the only crime where we lock up the criminal, but execute an innocent.
Fiona

August 27, 2012 at 12:27 pm

This has been Ryan’s position from the outset. He’s co-sponsored legislation with Akin to that effect. To go back on his record now would make him look as disingenuous on this issue as Romney has been.
legion

August 27, 2012 at 12:28 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13: And positions like that only make sense if you adhere to the strictly religious viewpoint that a soul is called forth at the instant of conception. In that, as Franklin notes, Ryan is at least internally consistent. But his ideas contradict everything we actually observe about fetal development. I can’t tell Ryan (or you, or anyone) to hold different religious beliefs, but neither can you expect the law of the land to reflect the same. If you think abortion is wrong, don’t have one.
Paul

August 27, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Doug you are a complete idiot. Complete. Idiot.

In case you missed science class, yes you can get pregnant from rape so yes, it is a method of conception.

As far as Ryan not getting the memo, HE WAS ASKED A QUESTION YOU MORON. He gave a quick (and logical) reply and changed the subject… that’s pretty much S.O.P. for a pol in this position.

THE REASON you have not seen more media is because the media is not as dimwitted as you. MAN you stretched to make this moronic post.

Why not imply Ryan endorsed rape… oh wait, you did.
grumpy realist

August 27, 2012 at 12:39 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13: And if I don’t happen to believe that a zygote is a human life?

Standard Catholicism, insisting that everyone have the exact same belief system they do. This is definitely a case of forcing a religious belief on other individuals.

Republicans: shrinking the government small enough to fit in your vagina.
Paul

August 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm

legion said: And positions like that only make sense if you adhere to the strictly religious viewpoint that a soul is called forth at the instant of conception”’ … his ideas contradict everything we actually observe about fetal development

It is “strictly religious” to consider life starting at conception? Are you really a moron or are you just spouting taking points no matter how ridiculous?

As an M.D. told me (paraphrased) “In Med school we spent days and days defining when life ends. When the heart stops beating or when there is no brain activity someone is dead. Shouldn’t those same criteria be used to define when life starts?”

I don’ know the answer but I do know the lady has a damn good point. Fetal heartbeat can be detected at 22 days and may start a bit earlier. ( Learn about about fetal development. )

It’s not ‘strictly religious” to think that life starts pretty darned early, it’s actually called science. Your spouting of insulting and nonsensical B.S. talking points won’t change that.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm

Again, this is the coherent anti-abortion position, if you take the position that a fertilized egg = a person with legal protections. Because then abortion – under any circumstances other than, possibly, potential death of the ~~incubator~~ woman carrying it – is murder.

The zygote didn’t rape anybody. At worst, it’s trespassing, but if you think it’s a person with rights you can’t really argue that you should kill it for trespassing. Ergo, when considering the zygote/embryo/fetus, conception is conception is conception. This is the logical conclusion of the “pro-life” position.

And I hope that those who think this way continue to clearly state their positions. I think they’re wrong, but I believe they benefit significantly from public ignorance of their actual beliefs.
grumpy realist

August 27, 2012 at 12:43 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13: What’s “innocent” about a blob of cells? So it has different DNA–so does a cancer tumor. That blob of cells only will turn into a baby-with-personhood if it acts like a parasite for the next nine months, sucking nutrition from the bloodstream of the woman it is embedded it. Get it through your thick head: We don’t allow slavery in this country, and we don’t mandate forced organ donation. Which is what this is.
Tsar Nicholas

August 27, 2012 at 12:45 pm

At a certain level the way in which these media reports are being written remind me of the “I shot the clerk” scene from “My Cousin Vinny.”

FYI, the other manner in which to have headlined this story is as follows: “Paul Ryan: Legalized Abortion Only in Cases of Rape, Incest, or Life of the Mother, is a ‘Vast Improvement’ over Current Policy.” Perspective is important and agendas are not merely for meetings.

The other irony here is that in essence Ryan is being excoriated for being honest and for not dodging a touchy subject. We all know what Ryan’s position is. Had he lied by pretending all of a sudden that he’s not a pro lifer he would have been lambasted for doing so. Had he dodged the question he would have been lambasted for doing so. Heads they win, tails you lose, when you’re guilty of being a Republican.

That all said, it is about the stupid, economy, not about social issues, and Ryan is a babe in the woods with respect to a national general election campaign, which is one of the many reasons why you don’t tap a mere district representative for veep.
grumpy realist

August 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm

@Rob in CT: Ok, so we can take it out of the woman and stuff it in your belly, ok?

Men should shut up about abortion. You will NEVER understand what pregnancy is and how it can be a total violation of a woman’s physical integrity if not wanted. It’s really easy to talk about the “morality” of the situation when you know damn well you will NEVER be forced to deal with it. When men can have pregnancy scares, then open your mouths.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm

@grumpy realist:

I suggest you take a deep breath, try to recall my previous posts on this and other topics, and read my comment again.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 12:56 pm

As an M.D. told me (paraphrased) “In Med school we spent days and days defining when life ends. When the heart stops beating or when there is no brain activity someone is dead. Shouldn’t those same criteria be used to define when life starts?”

I don’ know the answer but I do know the lady has a damn good point. Fetal heartbeat can be detected at 22 days and may start a bit earlier. ( Learn about about fetal development. )

That’s nice. Lots of things have heartbeats.

I distinctly recall the ultrasound picture of my daughter at ~7 weeks gestation. She was a tadpole.
MBunge

August 27, 2012 at 12:57 pm

@grumpy realist: “Men should shut up about abortion.”

If that means men can’t be held responsible for the consequences if a woman decides NOT to have an abortion, you’re completely correct.

Mike
MBunge

August 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm

@Rob in CT: “I distinctly recall the ultrasound picture of my daughter at ~7 weeks gestation. She was a tadpole.”

And if your wife had without her knowledge been given a chemical that left her completely unharmed but destroyed that “tadpole”…your reaction would have been?

Mike
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 1:03 pm

@MBunge:

I don’t even understand what analogy you’re trying to make. Abortion isn’t the act of some nefarious third party giving magical potions secretly. It’s a decision made by, at least, the pregnant woman (with our without the input of others). I can tell you think you’ve made some sort of point, but I really can’t figure what it is.

If she had miscarried, for instance, I would have been sad. It was a planned pregnancy. We decided we wanted to be parents. So it would have been unfun to lose our little tadpole. I suspect that, assuming there were not medical reasons otherwise, we’d have gotten over it and tried again.
george

August 27, 2012 at 1:10 pm

@Franklin:

Personally, I think that the view Paul Ryan has on this subject is more internally consistent. The only problem, of course, being that it’s incredibly cold-hearted to the point of being non-human.

I think that kind of sums it up.
legion

August 27, 2012 at 1:14 pm

@Paul:

It is “strictly religious” to consider life starting at conception?

Yes. Yes, it is. Because we know what happens at conception. We can observe the process in humans and other mammals. What we cannot observe is a ‘soul’, and that’s what people like Ryan use to define human beings.

As an M.D. told me (paraphrased) “In Med school we spent days and days defining when life ends. When the heart stops beating or when there is no brain activity someone is dead. Shouldn’t those same criteria be used to define when life starts?”

The words of this paraphrased, anecdotal, and possibly nonexistent MD actually undermine your own argument – a heartbeat describes certain biological processes that may or may not accompany a viable human life. Brain activity at a certain level of complexity are a better measure. None of these things exist at the moment of conception. You suggest I learn about fetal development? Perhaps you should do some reading on how many pregnancies spontaneously abort in healthy women. About how many of those women don’t even know they were ever pregnant, and have no control over what their uteruses consider a viable pregnancy.

It’s not ‘strictly religious” to think that life starts pretty darned early, it’s actually called science.

We’re not talking about “pretty darned early”, we’re talking about “at conception” And that _is_ a strictly religious idea.

Your spouting of insulting and nonsensical B.S. talking points won’t change that.

I’m not insulting anyone yet – in fact, I’m agreeing (in principle at least) with your paraphrased MD. It’s Ryan and other religious extremists who are insisting on defining life at conception, based on their own personal views; views that _cannot_ be confirmed by scientific observation.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Mbunge:

To explain further, I see pregnancy as a process. ~7weeks? Tadpole. ~34 weeks? An almost surely viable baby (though this is partly a function of the advance of technology, which is great).

My daughter was a preemie. 34 weeks. When the doctors determined that something was wrong and my wife and I were sent over to the hospital, I was sick with worry. For my wife, certainly, but also for the baby. All ended up well (after a 2-week NICU stay).

34 weeks ain’t 7 weeks. There’s a world of difference.
Murray

August 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm

I guess the next stage will be to mandate that the rapist marry the raped women to ensure the child doesn’t grow up out of wedlock.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 1:30 pm

@Murray:

Well, IIRC these folks are wobbly on the existance of such a thing as marital rape. So your half-joke is sadly not much of a joke. It’s all too real. It’s the reason why there is all this parsing of “real rape” from… well, from what? Stuff they don’t really think is rape.
nitpicker

August 27, 2012 at 1:34 pm

The philosophical question that always seems to stymie anti-abortion extremists is this: You’re standing in the center of a fertility clinic and a fire breaks out. On one of the building is a two-year-old child. On the other end of the building is a freezer (attached to a mobile, alternative power source) filled with thousands of fertilized eggs. You have time to run in a single direction and save either the child or the zygotes. Which do you choose?

If one truly believed those eggs were as human as that two-year-old, they’d have to choose to push the freezer out of the building and let the child burn. No one does.
al-Ameda

August 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm

And just how far removed is Ryan’s position here, from the idea that the use of artificial birth control is (de facto) abortion?

The GOP is determined to control a woman’s reproductive health care choices.
mattb

August 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm

@Paul:
The issue is not so much whether or not he is correct — of course the statement is correct. The issue that Doug is raising is that Ryan’s comments again demonstrate there is no daylight between Akin’s position, the Republican Party position, and Ryan’s view.

It also emphasizes the fact that the Republican Standard bearer’s views are out of sync with all of these. To this second point, it is news worthy.

It’s also news worthy to the degree that a large number of republicans have called for Akin to step aside for poorly expressing a view that is shared by everyone including the VP pick and is enshrined in the party platform. So it is fair to ask, what exactly did Akin do wrong, beyond what he has admitted was poor phrasing.

@Jenos Idanian #13 is correct in that this position is extremely internally consistent.

The question that must be asked is whether or not this position (consistent in the extreme and through being extreme) is (a) share with the majority of the electorate, and (b) if it is not, whether or not it is enough to change the perspective of some of those oh, so precious, independent and swing voters.

We won’t know those answers for a bit.
Lit3Bolt

August 27, 2012 at 1:46 pm

@Paul:

Does an anencephalic fetus have a soul?

I’m waiting for an answer from you so called pro-life medical experts.

Unlike some of you, I’ve actually read an embryology textbook and have seen with my own eyes the inhuman chimeras that sometimes spawn forth from a woman’s womb. Forcing women to carry these pregnancies to term, when the fetus has ZERO, repeat ZERO percent chance of survival is beyond monstrous, it’s sickening and dangerous and puts womens’ lives in danger just so that God-botherers can feel holier-than-thou. It’s a form of torture, plain and simple, and that it is forced on us by the State is as Kafkaesque and as Unholy as I can imagine a process being.

So I’m pro-choice, because I believe the State should not have the power to force couples to give birth to genetic aberrations against their will. It is their genetic material, their choice, their child, their conscience. Pregnancy is treated as a disease state because if it is not, the dangers to both mother and child multiply, including the risk of death.

But go ahead, be pro-life and cast your lot with the white Christian terrorists in the Republican Party. Forcing women to be pregnant against their will, you’re a real hero.
Donald Sensing

August 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm

@legion:

I do not understand the objections to the claim that a just-conceived embryo is alive. If it’s not alive, how could it grow and become, later, a newly-born baby?

If your objection to this is the concept of ensoulment, then are you saying that ensoulment does or does not happen?

If it does, when? Why then and not at conception?

If it does not, how do you know? And if there is no ensoulment ever, period, then what is the moral difference between aborting an embryo at conception plus three weeks (say) or at EDC minus three weeks? Or at full-term delivery plus one minute?

Don’t start gibbering about embryonic/fetal development at particular stages unless you can directly tie them to a moral distinction between aborting at three weeks versus 34 weeks or so, or delivery plus one minute or so.

But you can’t because the religious argument against abortion is a moral argument, and you have already rejected that.

So: are you able to enunciate any moral reason at all under which abortion is wrong, at any term of the pregnancy? Or do you say that there is no moral reason against it?
Moderate Mom

August 27, 2012 at 1:48 pm

@Rob in CT: I am pro-choice and have two wonderful children that were not only wanted, but planned, so I have to take exception to the “tadpole” description. When you were looking at the sonogram of your wanted child, did you see a tadpole or did you see your baby? Myself, I saw my baby.
Septimius

August 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm

@Rob in CT:

To explain further, I see pregnancy as a process. ~7weeks? Tadpole. ~34 weeks? An almost surely viable baby

Yes, and that process continues throughout the human life cycle. ~9 months? Infant. ~9years? Child. ~19years? Teenager. ~29 years? Adult. ~79years? Elderly.
michael reynolds

August 27, 2012 at 1:50 pm

I’m happy any time a Republican can be tricked into speaking honestly about their stupid, unrealistic, theocratic beliefs. Women are second class citizens to the GOP. The GOP is the party of narrow-minded white males. Systematic evasion and outright lies are required to appeal beyond that group. Kudos to Ryan for blurting out the truth. More sir, more!
Donald Sensing

August 27, 2012 at 1:52 pm

@nitpicker:

You are in a large room with a single exit. On one side are two dozen six-year old children whom you have never seen before. On the other side of the room is your own six-year-old child. Comes the fire. You can save either the two dozen kids or your own child. Which one do you choose? Why?
mattb

August 27, 2012 at 1:53 pm

@Rob in CT:

I don’t even understand what analogy you’re trying to make. Abortion isn’t the act of some nefarious third party giving magical potions secretly.

Actually @MBunge’s point is a good one — if an external party through either negligence or malice had killed the developing child at that “tadpole” stage, how should that be treated from a Criminal Justice perspective.

Is that theoretical action wrongful death (in the case of accident) or murder (in the case of malice).

It that artificially answered by how far developed the fetus (or child if you are of that mind) is in terms of estimated age?

Or is it simply an assault on the mother?

And if it is wrongful death/murder (and, to be clear, I’m not saying it is, I’m not even sure how I would respond to this), then why is it wrongful death/murder when its a third party and the choice by the mother (or a legal guardian) to abort is not?
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 1:56 pm

@Donald Sensing:

Of course it’s alive. It’s just not a person entitled to the legal rights and protections that people are entitled to.

The big questions are when does the fetus acquire rights and at what point does its right to life trump the woman’s right to control her body, if ever. Some folks go with a fuzzy “viability” standard, which nowadays would mean ~22 weeks or something like that. I think that’s too restrictive, because sometimes massive defects aren’t found until later, and it’s monstrous to force a woman to carry to term just to give birth to an unviable baby that’s going to then die within hours.

I’m of the opinion that the law should allow unrestricted abortion, but that one can certainly feel that a particular choice was morally wrong. Not everything that is currently legal is morally right. I doubt there will be many (or any, really) abortions of perfectly healthy fetuses in the ~35 week range. Because women are not cartoon villains.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 1:57 pm

@mattb:

The mother’s wishes matter a great deal. A third party doesn’t get to interfere in a pregnancy. I’m saying that the mother does.

So no, I don’t think it’s a great point. I think it’s obtuse.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm

@Septimius:

Funny. Children don’t have the rights of adults, so I don’t think you posts does what you think it does.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm

@Moderate Mom:

I saw something that really resembled a tadpole, but that hopefully (if all went well) would become our baby. The tadpole resemblence was really striking, and amused me (which is why I remember it so clearly, I suspect).

The later ultrasound (18 weeks?) did not look like tadpole. It was much closer to “baby” although clearly still in progress.

Take exception all you want.
PJ

August 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm

@Donald Sensing:
I’m sorry that I, by mistake, voted your comment helpful.
JUG

August 27, 2012 at 2:31 pm

@legion: If you think murder is wrong, don’t kill anyone…
mantis

August 27, 2012 at 2:42 pm

If life begins at conception, what should the punishment be for women who suffer miscarriages? Those can be naturally occurring (and very common), or they can be the result of poor nutrition, drug use, or other risky behavior on the part of the pregnant woman. It’s very difficult to discern the cause of a miscarriage. Should there be a miscarriage investigation unit in each police force to determine the cause and prosecute those who are determined to have caused a miscarriage through negligence?

You may want to keep in mind that while it is difficult to determine how many pregnancies are lost each year, it’s definitely in the millions each year. So “personhood at conception” believers, how many of those do you think are crimes? What should the punishment be?
legion

August 27, 2012 at 2:56 pm

@Donald Sensing: Okay, here goes:

I do not understand the objections to the claim that a just-conceived embryo is alive. If it’s not alive, how could it grow and become, later, a newly-born baby?

I object to using that simplistic a definition of “life”. It _could_ become a newly-born baby, but it could also develop into a non-viable fetus, or it could spontaneously abort, or it’s development could put the mother’s life at risk. The term “just-conceived embryo” is not very different from an early-stage cancerous growth. This leads to your second point,

If your objection to this is the concept of ensoulment, then are you saying that ensoulment does or does not happen?

If it does, when? Why then and not at conception?

If it does not, how do you know? And if there is no ensoulment ever, period, then what is the moral difference between aborting an embryo at conception plus three weeks (say) or at EDC minus three weeks? Or at full-term delivery plus one minute?

Actually, several points, but they all go to the same issue: What is a soul? Does it really exist, separating us from baser animals, or is it a construct we’ve come up with to differentiate ourselves from the animals we don;t want to see ourselves as?

What it comes down to is: you can’t define a soul. Not in a way that other people will agree with. You can’t point to one. You can’t weigh it, measure it, capture it, observe it. It’s based on your personal belief, not anyone else’s.

Don’t start gibbering about embryonic/fetal development at particular stages unless you can directly tie them to a moral distinction between aborting at three weeks versus 34 weeks or so, or delivery plus one minute or so.

When I was an undergrad, I saw a discussion between a Catholic Priest, a Protestant Minister, and a Jewish Rabbi. This sort of topic came up, and they were asked their positions. The Rabbi replied that dogmatically, Judaism says the soul doesn’t enter the body until it takes its first breath outside the womb. How widespread that belief is actually held among Jews, I couldn’t say. But it leads me to this:

Don’t start gibbering about moral distinctions unless you can define a universal morality that we can all agree to.
.
matt

August 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13: Well it’s nice to know that my wife is killing innocent people monthly and that I kill many innocents on a weekly basis..
legion

August 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm

@Donald Sensing: On thinking more about your statement:

If your objection to this is the concept of ensoulment, then are you saying that ensoulment does or does not happen?

If it does, when? Why then and not at conception?

If it does not, how do you know?

I would like to add: Piss off.
You have a belief in a religious concept that, by its very nature and definition cannot proven or demonstrated, and you ask me to prove you wrong? F*ck you. You don’t get to do that. You can believe whatever you want, but you have notright to demand I do the heavy lifting of actually thinking about your moral positions for you – I have a morality that I can live with; you have to build your own. If yours dictates you have to involve yourself in other people’s lives, we’re going to have problems. Again I say: If abortion bothers you, don’t have an abortion. But you don’t get to hold everyone else to the standards of your religion unless everyone else agrees those standards are truly universal. Good luck with that.
matt

August 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm

@mantis: Indeed even when the mother is healthy and doing everything right there’s something like a 50/50 chance that she will suffer a miscarriage..
michael reynolds

August 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm

@legion:
Hear, hear!
Septimius

August 27, 2012 at 3:32 pm

@Rob in CT:

Um, yes they do. A 9 month-old baby or a 9 year-old child has the same right to live as a 29 year-old woman or a 79 year-old man.
Jenos Idanian #13

August 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm

@legion: And positions like that only make sense if you adhere to the strictly religious viewpoint that a soul is called forth at the instant of conception.

Not so. One only has to believe that life begins at conception to hold that position — “soul” and religion are not intrinsic to the belief.

The issue of when a fetus “becomes” a human being has always bothered me. For one, it’s applying a digital solution to an analog situation. For another, it’s always come down to hair-splitting that usually translates into “whatever’s most convenient for what I want.”
sam

August 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm

@Donald Sensing:

Is your Monday, August 27, 2012 at 13:52 supposed to be serious reply to nitpicker’s original argument? If so, it’s a dodge. What is your answer to the original? I mean, folks on your side are arguing that a fertilized ovum should be accorded all the rights of a two-year old child. Tell us how you would choose, and defend the choice with an argument.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm

@Septimius:

True.

I maintain that a fetus, at all stages of development, is not a person with rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying said fetus. That’s the thing here: there are rights in conflict, and one party has to trump the other. In order to take Ryan’s position, one must sign on to the proposition that a zygote has rights that trump the rights of the woman (or, in some cases, minor teenager).

I think we ought to side with the person who has already been born over the developing fetus that may (or may not) develop into a baby and be born.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 3:50 pm

Cue up Monty Python, with a twist:

Every fertilized egg is sacred…
Septimius

August 27, 2012 at 4:12 pm

@Rob in CT:

But, you don’t think a fetus is entitled to any rights or legal protection. So, it’s not really about rights being in conflict. You believe that one human being (the mother) has a right to abort the fetus, but the other human being (the fetus) has absolutely no rights at all.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 4:21 pm

@Septimius:

The developing human’s rights are trumped by the human’s rights, in my formulation. The result is the same as you say, but it doesn’t require that the fetus have “no rights.” It simply requires that the woman’s rights trump.

This is zero-sum. Either you are comfortable with abortion or you are comfortable with legistatively forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
legion

August 27, 2012 at 4:22 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Not so. One only has to believe that life begins at conception to hold that position — “soul” and religion are not intrinsic to the belief.

I’m assuming you are taking the position that, since it can develop into a human being, it should be treated as one from “day one”, yes? I don’t hold the same, but I’ll grant that as a viable position. Let’s explore it.
If a human life, with all its attendant rights, exists from the moment of conception, then any woman who engages in risky pre-natal behavior is committing child endangerment. Forget smoking and drinking, there are numerous physical activities pregnant women shouldn’t engage in. And one big issue that comes to mind immediately is that, barring IVF (which comes up again in a minute), no woman has any idea when exactly she becomes pregnant.

I’m not trying to be facetious here, Jenos – I’m trying to plot out how this position, were it put into law, would actually impact society. We would have little choice but to treat (and legislate) any woman who wasn’t provably infertile as pregnant at all times, greatly restricting their ability to lead what we, today, consider a “normal life”.

Also, numerous forms of birth control – most notably the IUD – would have to be outlawed, as they prevent the implantation of an ovum in the uterus. And then there are numerous attendant issues with IVF and other fertility procedures that cull fertilized eggs. These would all become acts of murder under this basis. Further, any stillbirth or miscarriage would have to be investigated as a possible homicide. If a woman is carrying multiple fetuses, and one or more of them stop developing or are stillborn, would the mother – or the other surviving children – be at fault?

Again, I’m not trying to be snarky here – I’m trying to look through the actual consequences of the position you state above. The changes to our society – how we treat and think about women – would be unimaginable. And, I think, intolerable to many of them. Much like Ryan’s own statement, it is philosophically consistent, but still morally impossible.
Rob in CT

August 27, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Also, as others have mentioned, what are we gonna do? Investigate every miscarriage as a potential murder?
Septimius

August 27, 2012 at 4:35 pm

@Rob in CT:

If a right can be trumped by another person’s right for any reason, then it’s not really a right. Secondly, it may be zero-sum for you or me, or Paul Ryan, but for most Americans it is not. Most Americans favor legal abortion only in certain circumstances. That means they are comfortable with abortion in instances of rape and incest, but also comfortable forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
swbarnes2

August 27, 2012 at 5:02 pm

@legion:

I’m trying to look through the actual consequences of the position you state above.

You are being too literal, I suspect. I am reminded of an article by Orson Scott Card where he said he wanted to put anti-gay laws back on the books, though he didn’t want them actaully enforced. The idea in that case is to enshrine in law the idea that gay people are fundamentally illegal, and exist only because a grudging population tolerates them. It’s the same here. Conservatives don’t necessarily want to enforce these laws. They just want it enshrined in law that half the species are nothing more than inconveniently sentient incubators. And women who aspire to being more than that need to know that they are reaching beyond what is their proper due, that if they achieve some measure of a life outside that definition, it is only because men have graciously granted it to them, and that at any time, it could be taken away from them.

Funny (in a horrible way) note; look up the rules on what happens to in vitro human organisms when one parent decides he or she does not want them implanted; the upshot is, it is far, far easier legally for a woman to kill her offspring when they are sitting in a freezer, not impinging at all on her body, than it is when the organisms are inside of her.
wr

August 27, 2012 at 5:07 pm

@Murray: “I guess the next stage will be to mandate that the rapist marry the raped women to ensure the child doesn’t grow up out of wedlock. ”

Hey, if it’s good enough for the Taliban, it’s good enough for the GOP.
legion

August 27, 2012 at 5:09 pm

@Septimius:

If a right can be trumped by another person’s right for any reason, then it’s not really a right.

Um, wrong. Completely and totally the opposite of correct. Every right must be balanced against other rights, and can totally be trumped for the proper cause.

Ex. 1: You have a right to free speech. But if your speech endangers the safety of others – by lying to law enforcement or making false 911 calls, fr’instance – you will be prosecuted & put in jail. You right to free speech has limits.
Ex. 2: You have a right to “keep and bear arms” per the 2nd Amendment. But in many places, felons lose that right. they also often lose the right to vote. The potential danger to others (and their rights to life & liberty) outweigh the ex-con’s right to guns and votes.
Ex. 3: Free association. One of our more basic rights, but if you associate with groups that actively call for the violent overthrow of the government, you’re going to jail.

A common theme here is that the physical safety of others (especially groups or society as a whole) outweighs (_can_ outweigh, under certain circumstances) individual liberties. Frankly, that’s Ryan’s entire position – by declaring a fertilized egg to be a full human being, with full rights, from the very moment of conception, its rights have to be weighted against those of the mother.

Again, it’s consistent, but I (and many others) disagree with the granting of such consideration from conception.
Laura

August 27, 2012 at 5:53 pm

In 2003 I awoke late one night to a knock at my door, I was barely 19 years old and living life to its fullest on my own in my first apartment. I opened the door and was attacked by a man instantly, he strangled me to the point of loss of conciousness, beat me severely abouty head and neck, bit me, orally assaulted me and finally raped me. The blood vessels in my eyes were completely destroyed, eyes red, bruised black and blue and scared for my life every waking minute of every day. I say waking because I didn’t sleep again for months after that night. I tried to sleep, inside my closet fearing he would return. He told me he had AIDS and that I’d die.
4 weeks later I found out I was pregnant. I immediately scheduled an abortion and followed through. I am not ashamed. I wasn’t then, am not now, and never will be. That “conception” was forced and almost took my life. It was evil in every way and no way was it going to consume my body for nine months or even nine more days after I found out. It was wrong, and it was not my child. It was nothing any human or woman should have ever had to experience.
Paul Ryan, all of his supporters and cohorts need to stay the hell out of my body and every other woman’s body for that matter. When one of your daughers or the woman you love is raped, hopefully she isnt, but if so, support her choices and help her in any way. Don’t become the evil that hurt her. It’s is her body, her choice and it never should have happened to begin with. Until it is you- SHUT YOUR MOUTH!
mattb

August 27, 2012 at 5:58 pm

@swbarnes2:

I am reminded of an article by Orson Scott Card where he said he wanted to put anti-gay laws back on the books, though he didn’t want them actaully enforced. The idea in that case is to enshrine in law the idea that gay people are fundamentally illegal, and exist only because a grudging population tolerates them.

Wow, how Well-To-Do, Heterosexual White Male of him…

I cannot articulate how terrible an idea this sort of reasoning is — not to mention antithetical to traditional conservative thinking. More so it’s advocating living as a society of hypocrites.

Think about it in this way — what if we choose to do the same thing with race based laws? Or better yet, sodomy laws (which remember cover a lot of mainstream heterosexual activities as well).

Laws should either be enforced or should not exist.

Beyond the fact that it grows the size of government and preserves the ability to remove rights at any time, for the right was never granted only permitted through negligence.

Leaving any law on the book, but not enforcing it immediately opens the door to a future when that law is enforced.

The thing that Orson Scott Card and other don’t seem to want to realize is that society is not simply “tolerating” gay behavior — it’s accepting it. And that’s why that laws that consider that behavior to be overturned and removed. Or, if that behavior is truely unacceptable, then it shouldn’t be legal in the first place.
anjin-san

August 27, 2012 at 6:17 pm

The thing I keep coming back to is that these idiots believe, deep down, that rape victims are somehow to blame or deserving of what happened to them. Anger and rage towards women seems to run very strong in conservative thinking.
Nikki

August 27, 2012 at 6:36 pm

@Laura: Amen, amen, amen. No one should have the right to force an unwanted pregnancy on anyone, especially so in the cases of rape and incest.
Vast Variety

August 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm

@Rob in CT: There can never be too much Monty Python.

As for the topic at hand. My life started at 10:52 am on August 13th of 1972 when my awesome mother pushed my ugly mug out into the world. Before that I was simply a part of her anatomy. Until that August morning her rights trumped mine (and still do in some cases).
john personna

August 27, 2012 at 8:45 pm

@Franklin:

Personally, I think that the view Paul Ryan has on this subject is more internally consistent.

Well, it’s important to remember there are actually two questions:

1) what is your view on the start a human life?
2) do you want to impose your view on everyone?

Pro-life, no-exception, people have a very keen view (1), but they do stand read to impose it on people who have different ideas about biology, religion, and human rights (2).
Dani

August 27, 2012 at 10:28 pm

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Your statement makes it seem as if the woman or girl who is raped is NOT innocent. Just an observation.
MarkedMan

August 27, 2012 at 11:01 pm

Hmm. It is actually not beyond the realm of possibility that at some point in the future, men could carry a baby to term, given enough technology and assistance. So, let’s say a woman gets pregnant in this future scenario. She doesn’t want to carry it. So she asks the man to carry it. He says no. So she files with the court and a judge flips a coin to decide who has to carry it. So bottom line: if a man had a 50/50 chance of being forced to carry that baby to term on pain of a murder charge, how many people here think the “abortion should be illegal” movement would have anything like the support it has now?
Lindsay

August 28, 2012 at 12:38 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:
I like the way you worded that. Lock up the guilty and murder the innocent…..I never thought of it that way.
Janis Gore

August 28, 2012 at 7:29 am

@Septimius: You are comfortable with that, twit.
grumpy realist

August 28, 2012 at 8:20 am

@Septimius: You don’t know that much about law, it seems. Think about it: we allow “self-defense” as a reason to kill someone who is attacking us in a way that threatens our own life. Because we have a right to kill that individual under those circumstances, are you saying that the person doesn’t have, in general, a right to life?

What we’re saying is that the even though the fetus can be defined as “human”, because it is totally dependent on the woman and is in fact acting as a parasite, her rights to autonomy trump its right to leech off her as life support.

We don’t have forced organ donation in the US. Even if it is absolutely necessary for the other individual to survive. This is just another application of this policy.
grumpy realist

August 28, 2012 at 8:31 am

@Lindsay: If you like seeing a two-celled blob as “innocent” whose “rights” invariably trump that of an already-existing female, I can’t do anything about it. I can say that it shows a striking disregard for the rights of the woman involved. But maybe you don’t think we’re deserving all the rights that the average American male has?

If the zygote is so “innocent”, then why don’t you volunteer to carry it to term? We’ll find a way of making an artificial womb that attaches to the inside of the abdominal wall, and you can deal with it for 9 months. You’re probably going to have to get stuffed full of hormones, be careful of your diet and activity and will have to have surgery at the end to get the baby out, but that’s all right, right? Because the rights of that two-celled “innocent” organism definitely trump anyone else’s, right?

(If men could get pregnant I really really doubt we’d be running into this idiocy….)
thestooshie

August 28, 2012 at 9:10 am

@MBunge:

I don’t particularly understand your logic. The men that aforementioned poster was arguing against were not those arguing against the preservation of abortion rights… she’s tackling the men arguing the rights of a foetus and against the right of a woman’s choice. Were this to become legislation, many men (although FAR more women) will be lumbered with the responsibility of raising a child that they didn’t want.
Frank RIcho

August 28, 2012 at 10:06 am

@Paul: Paul, You are the idiot. Rape is a crime NOT a method of conception. A rapists goal is not to create a baby. People don’t rape others so they can have a baby therefore his statement is not only insensitive it is moronic. I repeat it is a VIOLENT CRIME against another HUMAN BEING. His words show he has no sympathy for the victims of rape.
No one is arguing that his words aren’t accurate in terms of a conception taking place after a rape. What we are concerned with is his insensitivity to the victims of the rape.
SO CLEARLY YOU ARE THE IDIOT IF YOU DON”T UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE POINT OF ALL THIS.

Additionally, the Constitution of the United States of America ensures SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. So leave your religious views in your house and out of the public. The governments has no right to impose religious doctrine on it’s citizens. The citizens, however, have the right to rise up and overthrow a government that does not reflect it’s values.
Frank RIcho

August 28, 2012 at 10:11 am

For all those trying to support Ryan. Here is the bottom line:
He could have said something like, “I am opposed to abortion no matter what the circumstances of the conception”
Instead he referred to rape as another “method of conception”

All of you arguing abortion rights are missing the point. It’s not his view we take offense the most to. It’s his choice of words and the thoughtlessness of the whole thing. Don’t forget this guy could be president if anything happens to Romney.

If he can’t process a complex thought without saying something horribly offensive and insensitive maybe he is not Vice-President material.

But what do you expect from the party that chose Sarah Palin as a running mate.
notsogrumpy

August 28, 2012 at 10:28 am

grumpy:I am a woman who has carried babies including one that was unplanned and it wasn’t a burden I was carrying, it was a life. Women like me though are supposed to shut up as well and not say when we first felt that baby move, when we first heard their heartbeat and certainly never say when we find out bc failed and we’re pregnant when we really didn’t want to be that we said we were pregnant with a baby not a fetus and not a blob of cells. Certainly never say how we immediately love this little baby that is a part of us.

Rob:Obama supports partial birth abortion, you know when a baby is born breech, toes, feet, legs, bottom, back, fingers, arms, shoulders, all except the head then it’s murdered and then the head can come out. Obama is on audio talking about babies that didn’t do the right thing and come out limp and dead. He voted against the bill to give those babies medical treatment. Neither of these types of abortions are tadpoles as you say. They’re too large to suck out in pieces the traditional way. So who is more extreme Obama or Ryan?
Janis Gore

August 28, 2012 at 10:57 am

@notsogrumpy: And that’s why some of us are pro-choice. Your zygote was precious to you. Great. I hope she/he loves you as well.
grumpy realist

August 28, 2012 at 11:34 am

@notsogrumpy: Fine. Don’t have an abortion. But don’t read into other women’s minds what you think they should be feeling. That’s what being pro-choice is.

If I am supposed to respect your feelings about your pregnancy then the very least you can do is respect other women’s feelings about theirs. And if the other woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, you need to respect the legal actions that she takes to rid herself of that unwanted pregnancy. Not all of us believe in “life starts at conception.” Some of us believe “human life starts with brain waves, but in no way should it trump the life of the woman unless she desires it.”
grumpy realist

August 28, 2012 at 11:37 am

@notsogrumpy: Partial-birth abortion isn’t done for the fun of it, you know. It’s done when the woman’s life is in danger.

If you want to die so that your “baby” can be saved, fine, do it. But don’t mandate the same choice for all other women.
Rex

August 28, 2012 at 12:31 pm

That is not what Ryan said in the interview. Your headline is very misleading, deceitful, and untruthful; much like the entire Obama campaign.
al-Ameda

August 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm

@Rex:

That is not what Ryan said in the interview. Your headline is very misleading, deceitful, and untruthful; much like the entire Obama campaign.

Naturally you do not point out the inaccuracy … because there is none. Ryan believes that rape is a method of conception and that abortion is abortion and not to be permitted.
Gale

August 28, 2012 at 2:15 pm

@sam:
But what if something happened to Romney…. he would be President. Scary
Richard Sol

August 28, 2012 at 3:42 pm

What Akin said was stupid and offensive. Ryan’s statement was the opposite, acknowledging the truth that rape can lead to conception. And it was said in the context of his belief that a fetus is a human life regardless of how it was conceived.

So, an unjustified left/liberal slam against Ryan.
Jay

August 28, 2012 at 9:18 pm

@Paul: I don’t know who the idiot is. Yes, rape is a method is conception, and it is correct. But you need to look at this logic: Ryan Paul also says that he is pro-life, since rape is a method of conception, and it doesn’t change the definition of life, so he is against abortion regardless the methods of conception. This simply concludes that he just confirmed that he holds the same point of view as Akin. Paul, you are a man, I bet, and you have no idea how it is like to be raped and then to get pregnant. But at least you need to study more what “logic” means. And I hope you are a vegan.
Paul is an idiot

August 29, 2012 at 11:21 am

paul you are a moron. I dont really have to explain much else cause anyone who reads your coments will clearly see
Obamer is better than rex

August 29, 2012 at 11:25 am

Rex rex rex, you really should just shut your mouth.
Janis Gore

August 29, 2012 at 12:52 pm

@Laura: God bless you, Laura.
Andy

August 30, 2012 at 9:12 pm

Disclaimer: I make no excuses for rape, or attempt to soften it in any way. It is beyond disgusting. I loathe it, and believe rapists should receive the most severe punishment reasonable and possible.

Having said that, I don’t believe Ryan’s comments are objectionable. (a) He didn’t broach the subject itself, but was asked a question pertaining to it. How often have we been frustrated by politicians who speak (or don’t) as if they have a hidden agenda…? Anything along the lines of “No comment” would simply have alerted the public to the possibility that Ryan has some measure of agreement with Akin, leaving people to imagine all sorts of things, accurately or inaccurately, re. Ryan’s own beliefs. That’s unfair to both the public and Ryan himself. It’s reasonable for him, then, to give a direct answer. Not just reasonable: laudable.

(b) He’s right–after all, it’s not the baby’s fault the mother was raped. As evil as rape is, it doesn’t morally justify an attempt to partially compensate for it by murdering an innocent baby. In other words: evil done to you really IS evil–but it doesn’t justify you turning around and doing evil to another innocent person.
Janis Gore

August 31, 2012 at 11:39 am

@Andy: Andy, can you begin to imagine how ungodly horrible it would be to use your bone and blood to follow the map of a person you revile?

Would you let your wife work for an employer who slapped her repeatedly, or called her vile names or kicked her in the belly when he felt like it?

That’s what you’re asking for there.
Andy

August 31, 2012 at 12:32 pm

@Janis Gore: I’m sorry, Janis, but with all due respect you’re simply mistaken. That is not what I’m asking for. And your response simply doesn’t overturn my argument: evil done to you cannot justify your turning around and doing evil to another innocent. If you disagree, then the onus is on you to defeat that moral principle.

Furthermore, your wording implies–contrary to what you intended–that perhaps I think we should let rapists continue to rape. In the analogy you came up with–no, of course I wouldn’t let my wife continually be abused by her employer (or anyone else). But when a woman has been raped and thereby impregnated–as tragic as that is–the rapist is not repeatedly raping her (which your analogy requires). Rather, it is now an innocent baby who is in her womb. In other words, it is a third person who has now entered the situation. Your reasoning implies we should equate the baby with the rapist, which is flatly absurd.

For her to turn her feelings about the rapist against an innocent baby is to merely exacerbate and extend the evil that’s already been perpetrated. And to reiterate my central point: I’m sorry, but no amount of spite for the rapist can make it “right” to murder another innocent.
Janis Gore

August 31, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Tell me this all again when your wife is gang-raped in a mall parking lot and becomes pregnant.
Janis Gore

September 1, 2012 at 8:20 am

You see, Andy, I think it’s your moral responsibility to protect your wife from the consequences of living in an evil world. God will not punish you for living up to your covenant with her. It is supreme.
Andy

September 1, 2012 at 10:55 am

Janis, you said: “Tell me this all again when your wife is gang-raped in a mall parking lot and becomes pregnant.” Again: this is not an argument. This is emotion masquerading as an argument. Your emotion-based reaction doesn’t change the morality of what I argued previously, which is: evil done to you cannot justify your doing evil to an innocent third party.

You’ve chosen to simply ignore my argument and react with emotion.

Neither does your follow-up comment change the morality of the situation. Many things happen to us that are, indeed, unfair. Imagine if I had an important appointment scheduled on a given day, and as I stepped out my door, there was an injured person lying on my doorstep begging for help. That’s “unfair” to me in the sense that I didn’t ask for it and now I have to deal with it. But it would be immoral of me to ignore that person in need, despite my previously scheduled appointment. To do the right thing I would have to forego the appointment.

The rape issue is obviously of far greater import and tragedy–but the logic is the same. It is certainly unfair to a woman to be impregnated by a rapist! But just because it was an unfair thing that happened to her, that doesn’t justify killing an innocent third party.

I’m sorry, Janis, but there is simply no moral ground for you to stand on here (and my wife would tell you the same thing, by the way: she’d hate being pregnant in that circumstance, but she wouldn’t dream of aborting the child, who’s an innocent; she’s standing behind me as I proofread this, by the way). Abortion is the killing of an innocent person–which is what constitutes murder. There is absolutely nothing you can say that will justify murdering that baby. You can get all huffy about it and caricature me (and Paul Ryan and others) as lacking compassion, but you simply cannot overturn the moral truth involved here.

What your reaction implies is that you believe two wrongs make a right.
Janis Gore

September 1, 2012 at 11:57 am

Then that’s your choice. It is not mine.
Janis Gore

September 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm

In my view, that puts you in the biology is destiny camp. Sort of a scientific Calvinism.
Janis Gore

September 1, 2012 at 7:03 pm

M. Simon at Classical Values ran down Judaic law on abortion a couple of years ago. His review of rabbinical law concluded that Judaic law allowed abortion up to 40 days after so-called conception.

Plan B is acceptable. As is any other potion or plot to foil the infestation of an unknown source in the womb during that time.

This is the Law of the Book. I’m a Bookish person. And A lawyer’s wife.

Take it or leave it.
Chuck Farlie

September 5, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Check out: “An Interview With the Republican Party’s Stance on Rape” It’s legit. Like rape.

http://youtu.be/JY8w-yvOHOI
Ariel

September 6, 2012 at 4:55 pm

For all those saying we imprison the rapist and execute the innocent, you are wrong. Most rapists are not put in jail. Look it up. The statistics are staggering. And that is also to say that the innocent woman is completely absent from this issue. She is imprisoned as well, imprisoned by the torment and constant reminder of her rape as her stomach grows and she feels the kick of the unwanted child inside. Also, Republicans are notorious for disagreeing with aid to the poor. So, that woman who can’t afford the child now has the economic responsibility to raise it, and may well neglect it due to lack of funds. Is that better? Pro-birth and pro-life are very different things, and it seems many who oppose pro-choice platforms are really just pro-birth.If you want to force a woman to keep her pregnancy then you have to deal with the responsibility of that choice and assist those babies you apparently have saved. (I didn’t come up with the pro-life vs pro-birth statement, but I can’t remember where I read it.)