How do you simply "not mind" when you believe abortion in those instances to be the murder of an innocent human life? You can say it's a step in the right direction, but as far as you're concerned, what's the difference between a woman getting an abortion because she was raped and a woman getting one for an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex?
I'm not saying that the practical effect was any different from a sellout, but I do now realize that he chose his words very carefully there. He did not actually endorse child murder here. He made two very rigid statements of fact in which he invoked only his running-mate's name in relation to the policy(during the debate). Perhaps this was the only way he felt he could roll out of this one and still have a chance to get into the white house and do his Catholic duty to defend life from one of the most powerful offices in the country?
In the interview cited, he qualified the word "comfortable" with the word "because" and so the question we must ask is, is 93% less babies murdered a step in the right direction? At least quantitatively it is, and perhaps that's the mental reservation he was using when he made that statement. Perhaps he regrets that statement and has confessed it? Perhaps it was a valid implementation of the church's teaching on permitted mental reservations and no confession was necessary? I suppose there's no way of knowing for sure. I'm not trying to desperately defend what I know is an unfortunate ticket. Obviously there's nothing good about having to choose between a so-called Christian who actively endorses abortion paid by the state, and a Mormon heretic who will probably kill less of the unborn (even if only because he knows he has a mandate to do so from conservatives that he must honor a little in order to get reelected) who happens to have an apparently prolife catholic as a running mate who has historically opposed 100% of abortions and now is doing verbal gymnastics due to the conflict in their positions on exceptions.
I know that's not a good situation for someone with my views on this matter. It's horrible. But I'm just trying to give this guy a little benefit of the doubt. I'm sure I could turn out to be completely wrong. But when I see him choose his words so carefully I can't help but have flashbacks to a seminar I attended on the church's teachings about making mental reservations as opposed to lying in situations that are of great importance. For example, nazis asking you if you're hiding and jews "in here" and by saying "no not hiding any in here" you mean the entry way. Again, I know it sounds far fetched. But as a Catholic I am obligated to at least make a mental note of his careful wording tonight.
I think the question to ask is whether Ryan is formally or materially (mediately or immediately?) cooperating with evil according to his beliefs by voluntarily assisting a superior (would-be President Romney) in enacting laws which would allow for the murder of unborn children in certain circumstances.
Here's the definition for material cooperation: http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34788
And double effect: http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215