Lyin' about Ryan
One man's extremist is another's moral giant
Lyin' about Ryan
Well good golly, Miss Molly, the New York Times has a problem with social conservatives. Who’d a thunk it.
Actually, they’ve always had a problem with those of us who stray to the right of that bright line of ‘reason,’ the one that says women must be reduced to their common element: the desire to fill or empty their wombs according to their (and only their) desires.
Because, you know, that is the defining characteristic of an intelligent woman, according to the scribes at the Times and all the other newspapers that think they have a patent on rational thought. And according to the Gray Lady’s editorial page, Paul Ryan is among the idiots.
Here’s what they had to say about Mitt Romney’s running mate in Monday’s edition:
“A long history of social extremism makes Paul Ryan an emblem of the Republican tack to the far right.”
And then they go on to document that ‘social extremism.’
Ryan wants to eliminate the rape exception to abortion. But that’s consistent with his beliefs that all life is sacred (and his scientifically-based position that the natural result of an uninterrupted pregnancy is a human child.) Therefore, while rape is evil, the result of that rape is not. You might disagree, but you can’t call fault his reasoning.
Ryan also wanted to narrow the definition of rape so that poor women couldn’t get their abortions paid for through Medicaid. For those of us who don’t want public monies paying for abortions, that makes a lot of sense, too.
He also signed onto a bill that would have allowed employers to refuse to provide insurance coverage for birth control if it violated their religious or moral convictions, a ‘conscience clause.’ James Madison would be smiling at that, while waiving the First Amendment in our faces.
And he has also co-sponsored bills that would require women to obtain an ultra-sound before getting an abortion, something that some women’s groups called ‘rape.’ I’m assuming they were referring to ‘legitimate rape’ as opposed the Todd Akin or statutory kind.
The Times calls this ‘social extremism.’ Liberals call anything they disagree with extreme, while pretending to be advanced in their thinking, so rational and tolerant. Until the mask falls off.
Here’s a copy of an email I received in response to Friday’s piece on Todd Akin:
I'll go to bed with a smile on my face tonight. if only you had either been aborted, or impregnated via rape... sigh... that smile would be just a tad more wide... have a nice weekend. hugs and kisses
Nice to know the interns at the New York Times are fans.
First of all, dear Chris, anyone who wishes such evil on any woman (or man) is disgusting and I have already said so. I am so sorry you were subjected to that kind of lunacy.
I was also glad to see the censors removed one such post from your Friday board.
Mr. Ryan is certainly allowed to have his opinions and others can respectfully disagree. It is called voting.
Thanks for the link to the Times. I had already read it. I was also reading some of the comments below it.
One poster quoted from my favorite text in the Old Testament from Micah 6:8:
"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God."
All leaders need to meditate on those words.
— Gendres- Obviously Chris, the world is filled with idiots and haters and the e-mail you received is an example of that. I don't agree with anything Ryan stands for, but he has a right to express his beliefs. However, rape is rape as he has said and that doesn't answer the question as to why he supported a bill using the forcible rape language. And, when questioned about his position, he punts on 3rd down. This is a leader? Or is he a coward,avoiding a definitive answer because he is afraid to upset the great majority of women,which includes Catholics?— lport
- Iport, I am willing to bet that the final campaign platform will be a modified version of the Ryan plan.
As Chris says, he may have just been trying in a clumsy way to stop poor women from using a "rape" excuse to get Medicaid to pay for their abortions. I think that was in back of Akin's outrageous statement as well.
I also think it is good of you to defend the author from such insane attacks. It is the price outspoken writers sometimes pay.
8-)— Gendres - Gendres: Unfortunately, you would lose that bet. If Romney-Ryan differ on the platform, they will blow the minds of the conservatives. They could have disowned it by now or could have influenced more reasonable language. They didn't and showed their cowardice.— lport
- Duh, Medicaid does not pay for abortion! Women pay for their own abortions, and abortions are very expensive, so I hear. It's also a Rethuglican myth that PP dollars go to fund abortions. Just more distortion, distraction, and propaganda as per usual from Christine No Facts Flowers, the women who vehemently defends the indefensible and vilifies decent people every day. For shame!— sophistry
- Sorry to read the sarcastic hate mail you received, Christine. I guess you can join the Whiny Conservatives Club, comprised of those who can dish it out but can't take it. Funny, I have some e-mails you sent to someone I know that are very, very nasty. Would you like me to disseminate them? I would be happy to.— sophistry
- i disagree with you that Ryan's reasoning is correct. If the reasoning is that all life is sacred and that life should not be taken how to you explain the ticket's stance that government can take life through the use of the death penalty. If all life is sacred and there should be no exceptions to the taking of life then there should be no death penalty. So Ryan's absolutist moral thinking only applies to sistuations where he wants it to apply , abortions, and not to sistuations where he does not want it to apply, the death penalty.
I am sure Paul Ryan has no problem with self-defense which is an exception to the taking of his life. So Ryan's viewpoint only applies to sistuations of where he can apply it too. It is okay for the government to take life but not a rape victim.
As an attorney you should understand that not everything is in absolute terms that there are logical exceptions to law based on morals, .. for example.. murder, gun possesion, and drug possesion.
There are holes in Ryan's viewpoint that all life is sacred (which he does not believe since he is for capital punishment) and that there are no exceptions for the taking of life.. when he does not truly believe since he believes in self defense.— streetjustice - Sophy, you are WRONG about Medicaid and abortion. It will cover abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or endangers the mother's life. Which is why a woman who claims she is raped may be just saying that to get a free abortion. It is not far fetched.
So you are the one with no facts. You are also the expert on vilification.
— Gendres - streetjustice - here's the thing. The concept of self-defense is consistent with respect for life. No one expects a person whose life is threatened to just sit back and let it happen. Even abortion can be construed sometimes as an act of self-defense, if to continue the pregnancy would jeopardize the mother's life.
The same premise applies to war and sometime capital punishment. The state, like the individual reserves the right to self-defense. A just war is allowed if the safety and security of the nation is at stake.
Murder of first responders like police and firemen is also something that could be considered a threat to the state. So the death penalty is often justified on that basis. Unless you are Mumia.— Gendres - I think you miss my point that if Ryan takes an absolutist approach to the fact that life is life with no exceptions then he can not use the logic behind self-defense and capital punishment to allow the taking of life if he beleives that life is life without exception. — streetjustice
- Iport, I think that Romney and Ryan will of course agree on the platform. But it may not be exactly what each of them believes himself. They will present a unified front on whatever the platform ends up being.— Gendres
lport says, "I don't agree with anything Ryan stands for..."
Rather extreme statement, lport. Only idiots make extreme statements like that. So, keeping to your motif,I disagree with anything you stand for. See how stupid that statement is.
Back to school for you, lport.
— PlumberJoe- Christine, I will draw upon the idiotic theme of lport. He disavows anything Ryan says as meaningful.
In its place I will offer my theme-
As I get only one vote in this upcoming election, to vote for Obama is to waste my vote. So WHAT DOES IT MATTER what Ryan says and for that matter, what anyone says.
The die has been cast. All of these men are already who they are. Let's vote tomorrow.
Sorry to say the abortion issue was settled, for better or for worse, in Roe v Wade.
Now to deal with something we can change. Let's get rid of that abominable Obama. And get on with a rebirth of this country.— PlumberJoe - Dumber wasn't being too dumb! Wow! That's right: focus your energy on positive change. Roe v. Wade is over. It will not change. (Though even if it did. millions of abortions would still be performed each year--only trouble being that women would die, too. Is that what you neocons hope for?).— sophistry
- I will send Christine's nasty e-mails to her bosses, and then you shall see, Big G, how your Dear Chrissy vilified herself with her own hateful words.— sophistry
Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.
