You know those environmentalist . . . believe sciene that supports their position because their ultimate aim is to save the planet and man kind.
FWIW: Although Paul Ryan has taken the position that all abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, should be outlawed, the Wisconsin congressman supports Mitt Romney's softer position now that he shares the GOP presidential ticket because it's a "good step in the right direction," he said today. Romney believes abortion should be legal in cases of abortion or incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. Ryan's previous position only extended exceptions to protecting the mother's life
two thoughts on this: 1) Romney's position is softer than his, but much "harder" than what's currently on the books. I think he was saying that Romney advocating for tougher laws than what we have now is the "good step in the right direction", not becoming softer. 2) Regardless of the issue, wouldn't you say that it's probably better for people who are wrong to eventually, through education/pulling their head out, change their mind?
Last time I checked, my tax dollars pay to subsidize Coast Guard Boater Safety Education programs, but they don't pay for a free life jacket for everyone who wants one.
1. Romney's position is whatever he gets paid to say it is. The man clearly has no conscience of his own, nor any backbone to speak of, and he changes his "views" as often as he takes in donations. I don't think that's what Ryan was saying anyway. He was trying to appease women voters, who have good reason to fear him. 2. Yes, I am all for educating ignorant bigots and I applaud anyone who is truly willing to listen and learn.
[video=youtube;cat5SyMBSpk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cat5SyMBSpk[/video] you can skip to about 50 seconds. He refers to rape as one of "the method of conception" which doesn't make a difference to his stance on abortion. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/paul-ryan-said-something-_b_1832377.html article discussing it.
This is probably going to get me a lot of angry responses, but here goes... Why is the rape/incest question part of the abortion debate at all? For those who oppose abortion--do you oppose it because you believe that terminating a pregnancy (wanted or not) is inherently wrong. Do the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy make termination less wrong? Why is that? As for those who support universal abortion rights--why would it matter if an Ryan would support abortion in certain situations? Isn't he still opposing universal availability of a "right"? Would supporting abortion rights in rape/incest situations make Ryan worthy of support when he wasn't otherwise?
Well in many states, the father always has visitation rights to the child. Regardless if he raped the mother. That's not directly answering your question but I felt important to share. More directly, If someone gets pregnant from sex and they were careless with using a contraceptive, that's very different than someone being forced to be put in a situation of possibly pregnancy.
I understand the vast difference in the situation. What I fail to see is how that difference affects whether or not abortion is inherently wrong, as the anti-abortion lobby states. Is a fetus conceived through rape less of a "person" than a fetus conceived consensually?
What I don't get is why someone who favors abortion could oppose the death penalty. I see them as nearly one and the same thing.
Every sperm is sacred. Mastrubators are basically serial killers who deserve to be put to death. Wait, what?
Pretty easy, if the person doesn't view a fetus as a human life. The person in prison for life could, conceivably, be self-sustaining if released from prison; society is simply not permitting self sustenance. The same cannot be said about the fetus. Therefore, the fetus is less a "life" than a death-row inmate is.
The fetus is a human life, scientifically. DNA. Is it any less a life 1 day before birth? 2 days? etc. BTW, I'm pro choice and pro death penalty. Like I said, I see the two as basically the same thing (justified taking of a life).
Unfortunately, the definition of "life" varies from person to person. Some agree with you that life begins at conception. Others at birth. Others some point in between (such as when the fetus would be viable outside the womb). There is no universally accepted strict definition, regardless of how confident you are in yours.
