Last week, Paul Ryan gave an interview in which, defending his position that there should be no excuses for abortion, he referred to rape as a "method of conception."
Wow, right? Talk about a benign euphemism. Rape -- RAPE! -- is now a "method of conception." You know, like love-making, just without the love.
There could be no greater testament to the utter abdication of responsibility by what passes for a "news" media in America in 2012 than that, despite the grotesquerie of this cavalierly callous comment, chances are better than good that this is the first you're hearing of it.
Here, watch it -- and try to figure out why this has gotten NO MAINSTREAM MEDIA play (not even here at the Huffington Post) despite it being, to my mind, a far more offensive remark than Todd Akin's imbecilic blurt of last weekend. What, are we tired of stupid remarks about rape now, so Ryan gets a free pass?
Given the demands for Akin's resignation from a mere Senate race when his musings on "legitimate rape" were publicized, what do you imagine the reaction would be if people were as familiar with VP wannabe Ryan's stunning statement? Might there be a cacophony of outrage? Might there be calls for his resignation from the ticket? Might there be a focus on how fundamentally oblivious these people who would make our laws are to not just women's but humans' rights and dignity? Sure, there might, but then of course people would have to have heard about it.
According to the man who would be the proverbial heartbeat away from the White House, and who in any event would -- given Romney's utter hollowness -- have an inordinate influence on the judicial appointments that will determine how much freedom our children get to live under, RAPE = "METHOD OF CONCEPTION." And yet, unless you're a frequenter of one of a dozen or so lefty blogs -- or my friend on Facebook -- you probably knew nothing about it.
I truly despair for the country my 14-year-old daughter is inheriting. That a remark this intensely revealing of the danger posed by this ticket can go basically unreported is as nauseating to me as the quote itself.
Follow Paul Slansky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/slansky
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
He has decided that rape shouldn’t be a factor when considering the issue of abortion; this makes him equally wrong, more heinous on the issue and unqualified to legislate.
What Todd Akin and Richard Rivard said was at least an effort to acknowledge the issue of rape in cases of abortion. While still being wrong they at least had some sense that rape is a valid reason for an abortion even if they define rape shamelessly.
In reality Paul Ryan made clear with his definition of life at the point of conception renders the means of that conception irrelevant to his ideas on legislating abortion exceptions. Then he cosponsored legislation with Todd Akin that would have redefined what qualified as rape for the purpose of limiting exceptions in the cases of rape.
In the case of Todd Akin and Roger Rivard they created a false premise about the idea of rape to justify their legislation on issues regarding abortion. What Paul Ryan did was diminish the issue of rape with his definition of life and regardless of either approach the outcome is the same. The men using different words shaped the same outcome so they may as well have used the same words they signed onto the same legislation for the same flawed reasoning.
Rape according to Ryan is just another "method of conception"
No, Paul, RAPE IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE. It doesn't matter if the victim is a woman, another man or a child.
If a man is raped by another man, what does he conceive—HIV????
As a former Republican this ticket is one of the worst I have seen since Bush/Cheney. The top of the ticket is weak and holds any political position he needs to depending on the political season. The bottom of the ticket Paul Ryan has much more depth and is fiendishly clever in framing issues while still just as callous, the outcome is the same.
In any case of rape, incest or a mother’s health it isn’t the role of any government to take away their choices.
In the case of George Tiller the full term abortion doctor who was shot and killed, he had a plaque in his office it said two words “trust women”. It is not the job of a politician to make the decision for any woman on conception regardless of his definition of life.
I think the greater moral value would be to work against incest and rape but instead we debate over the outcomes of those crimes then passing legislation granting woman the moral options after that fact as if she committed the crime of conception.
what way can a child be conceived .... rape is one way ...
so like the wording or not rape would be the method of conception ... simply
being the way the conception took place ....
no problem here ...
The problem is these aren’t retired old rednecks, sitting outside a store spewing racial slurs; they are men who shape legislation and policy. They sit in the White House, the Congress and the Senate deciding the fate of rape victims regarding abortion exceptions with their science and faith shaping it. This is something Paul Ryan said at the debate he wouldn’t separate his faith (definition of life) and understanding of science from his pro-life stance.
This is exactly what Todd Akin said his faith was right, his heart was right but his science was wrong, he knows better now, he’s sorry but it doesn’t change his stance.
The only difference between Paul Ryan and Todd Akin the latter had a patently false reason for understanding rape and the previous completely dismisses rape as an issue profoundly callous, he decides what matters is his definition of life. They both shape policy on abortion and people live with their failed facts and overzealous works of faith.
I think Joe Biden got it right when he told Paul Ryan and his party to get out of the way stop with the complaining and get out of the way.
The problem Paul Ryan writes a check arguing the sanctity of life he doesn’t have to worry about covering because he knows it will never be cashed. He won’t have to sit in the rooms of rape victims forced by his definition of life conceive a child they didn’t want. He won’t sit with the family that loses a mother because she can’t opt out on birth because of health risks. It is easy to argue the sanctity of life when you aren’t the one sitting on the front lines of that battle when the people are strangers.
It is easy to legislate on the issue when you aren’t on the frontlines of that battle reducing the conversation to a simple sentence really creates profound political sound bites.
It’s what Regan did when he mandated the emergency rooms treat all people regardless of their ability to pay. It’s what they do they have all this moral compassion when they don’t have to pay for it.
They are the party of social compassion dine and dash they resent the check when it must be paid Paul Ryan included.