Why are extreme pro-lifers so skittish about their own beliefs? This is a bill that would give a fertilized egg "all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood." There are (a) no exceptions for eggs fertilized by rapists or by your own father, and (b) Ryan is a cosponsor. Logic chopping aside, this means that Ryan has cosponsored a bill that has the plain intent of "effecting" a policy that allows states to ban abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest.
In fact, if this bill were passed and the Supreme Court upheld it, I'll bet that a rapist could go to court and sue to prevent his victim from getting an abortion. He'd argue that the fetus was legally a human being, and the court has no power to discriminate between one human being and another. He'd probably win, too.
In other abortion news, Stephanie Mencimer reports that the same bill would likely have the effect of making in-vitro fertilization illegal. My Twitter feed is full of outrage that Stephanie would say this, but what else can you conclude about the law? In IVF, multiple embryos are created, and only a few are used. The others are either destroyed or frozen, and everyone knows that the frozen embryos are never going to be revived. HR 212 would almost certainly make IVF illegal, and since Mitt Romney's kids have used IVF it would, as the headline says, make them criminals. Or childless. Is that a brutal way of putting it? Sure. But it's a pretty brutal law. What's wrong with letting people know in stark terms just exactly what it would mean?
If human life begins at fertilization, it means abortion would be illegal even in cases of rape and incest, and it means IVF would be illegal. Those are the consequences. If you hold an extreme pro-life position, you need to own those consequences, even if they're politically unpopular.
One of the bills he co-sponsored would define human life as beginning at the moment of fertilization — a far-reaching approach that could limit access to contraception and procedures like in vitro fertilization. It’s similar to the “personhood” approach, which voters in deeply conservative Mississippi rejected last November.
Another would let hospitals decline to perform abortions, based on religious conviction, even if the life of the pregnant woman is at stake.
The Obama campaign made women’s issues a central component of its initial response to Ryan’s selection, alongside his controversial Medicare plan and tax proposals.
“Paul Ryan co-sponsored a bill that would ban many common forms of birth control, including certain birth control pills,” the Obama campaign tweeted on Saturday.
First of all, R & R forgot to mention that only HETEROSEXUAL zygotes shall have the honor of 'personhood' bestowed upon them. The rest can forget it.
Secondly, it's well-known that the Republican party has a certain level of disdain for the more unfortunate in our society. They want to reduce or eliminate government assistance for health care and education even though they must know that education and birth control are essential tools for dealing with the problem of over-population of the planet. The production of more children born into unstable and unsupportive situations couldn't be good for any Zygote and will certainly not benefit our society. Whose going to take care of all these Zygotes anyway? The government?
Thirdly, we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting any discussion of a candidate's private religious and moral views regarding reproductive freedom. These topics merely distract from the real questions, such as "Can this candidate intelligently and skillfully address the real problems our country is facing?" (I think the ideologically obsessed electorate of this country has to take some of the ownership for creating this pointless dialog. Every citizen in this country is not going to think or believe or chose as you do. Get over it.)
The only good thing, to me, about this particular election season, is that the mask has been torn off from what the Republican party pretends to be. We already, fortunately or not, knew what they intended, because we live in Sid Miler's district.
I agree with you about the zygotes. What happened to discussions about population control? But the Republicans aren't having THAT discussion, their's involves regulating a woman's uterus.
I think that discussions of a candidates beliefs are fair game when that one has either attempted to pass or has passed legislation that gets into... people's private religious and moral views and actions re: reproductive freedom. Sid Miller, for example, richly deserved the lampooning he got from Doonesbury. I was only surprised when one Republican from this county running for office told me that there were a number of Republican women who didn't agree with Miller-well, why the heck didn't they speak out?
I don't think the 'mask' has been torn off yet. That probably won't happen unless these two are actually elected and Americans will then have the opportunity to see for themselves that our problems are much larger and more systemic than any one President has the power to fix. Denial and delusion are powerful things and will not go quietly into the night.
Unfortunately, no one is talking about our biggest problem: the unsustainable number of people inhabiting the earth and our dwindling resources that will soon become insufficient to sustain them. No elected officials that I know of speak about this nor do our Corporate handlers. It's just not good for politics or business, way too depressing. Most of us can't handle the truth and we won't tolerate (or vote for) a politician who offers it.
Yes, Sid Miller needed to be dressed down for his medieval and pandering attitudes and legislative influence over a women's reproductive rights, rights that have been fought for and legally established. That's my point. What you or I do with our bodies is no one's business but our own and I certainly am not about to hand my rights over to some desperate politician dialing for dollars. To go round and round over ethical differences is a pointless exercise. The only solution to the argument is to accept the reality that our country is not made up of people who are alike in their beliefs. Each of us has a right and a responsibility to make our choices. Politicians are not invited.
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be
patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You
want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest
comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or
govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammersMore on commenting