AbsolutePunk.net
   Username
Password
 
Share
09:05 PM on 10/11/12 
#1
Offline
User Info.
Esrb99
The Pertinacious Papist
Esrb99's Avatar
Rolla, Missouri
Male - 24 Years Old
Ask Ryan why he differentiates based on instances of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Ryan never said his personal view is differentiated: He said the Romeny campaign position was such.
06:13 AM on 10/12/12 
#2
Offline
User Info.
Esrb99
The Pertinacious Papist
Esrb99's Avatar
Rolla, Missouri
Male - 24 Years Old
"Ask why the campaign position differentiates."

Ryan has said he believes all abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape and incest, while Romney has said previously he believes it should be legal in those cases. Ryan said when he was first selected that he didn’t mind his running mate’s less stringent views because it was a “step in the right direction.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...n-has-changed/
03:32 PM on 10/12/12 
#3
Offline
User Info.
Esrb99
The Pertinacious Papist
Esrb99's Avatar
Rolla, Missouri
Male - 24 Years Old
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
03:48 PM on 10/12/12 
#4
Offline
User Info.
Esrb99
The Pertinacious Papist
Esrb99's Avatar
Rolla, Missouri
Male - 24 Years Old
Haha, indeed. The argument has been presented before and they despise it. The big problem with framing the debate in terms of life/non-life is that it caters to the arcane notion of the "sanctity" of human life. It's also impossible to find some non-arbitrary, ethically forceful demarcation criterion between what constitutes life from non-life.

This same 'arcane' notion that is in the declaration of independence?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If the notion of the 'sanctity' of Human life is arcane, then how do you feel about its inclusion in the above statement from the Declaration of independence?

As the declaration holds life to be an unalienable right, then we as a nation have a responsibility to protect life as ardently as liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not one's views on the sanctity of life differ is irrelevant.
04:23 PM on 10/12/12 
#5
Offline
User Info.
Esrb99
The Pertinacious Papist
Esrb99's Avatar
Rolla, Missouri
Male - 24 Years Old
I couldn't care less what the DoI says. It was adopted in 1776, or over 200 and some odd years ago. Around the same time that, in the Constitution, it was declared that slaves are to be considered 3/5 persons. We have the ability to improve our ethical views over time by employing ever greater reasoning and moral considerations. Anyway, that entire statement you just quoted is merely a five-dollar phrase that has never actually been translated into policy. All three--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--have been, historically and up to and including the present day, routinely denied to countless numbers of people. It's only something that we pay lip-service to in order that we may feel warm and fuzzy inside when we recount our nation's inception.

I fail to see how advocating that we should not hold human life as sacred is 'improving our ethical views'.



NEWS, MUSIC & MORE
Search News
Release Dates
Exclusives
Best New Music
Articles
CONNECT
Submit News
Forums
Contests
Mobile Version
AP.net Logos
HIDDEN TREASURES
AbsolutePunk Podcast
Free Music
Sports Forum
Technology Forum
Recommendations
INFORMATION
Advertising
Contact Us
Copyright Policy
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
FOLLOW
Twitter | Facebook | RSS
AP.net Podcast on iTunes
UnderTheGun
Purevolume
Chorus.fm | @jason_tate