While the documents Gawker released the other day may not be the bombshell Gawker claimed, but according to the NewYorker.com article I just linked to it does raise sufficient questions--and conflicts--with things Romney has said. But really, on a basic and very visceral level, this pales in comparison to the clarification Paul Ryan made in an interview with WJHL yesterday when he said:
“I’ve always adopted the idea, the position, that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.”
Ok, this is a profoundly horrible, ignorant and simplistic way of looking at rape. Let's break it down:
1) it's a straw man argument. Of course rape doesn't change the definition of life. That's not the issue. The issue is a woman's right to decide what happens to her body. The question isn't "do you define life differently in the case of rape." The question (at least for conservatives) is: "Which is more important? A human life or a woman's freedom?"
2) In phrasing his statement in this way Paul Ryan not only ignores the basic human rights of women, but he also ignores the entire issue of rape. He has no concept of and has taken no time to try to create a concept of what it's like to be raped in his mind. The phrasing of this statement and the belief behind it makes it clear Paul Ryan and anyone who agrees with him have exactly zero ability to climb into someone else's shoes. To me, this suggests a sociopathic lack of sympathy for other people. This is the last person you want a heartbeat away from the White House and in charge of sending our soldiers off to war.
3) With this statement, Paul Ryan is basically saying "rape is OK." It's another example of Republicans thinking that the ends justify the means--which the ends never do. At the very least, Paul Ryan thinks rape is an acceptable way to get someone pregnant. I would give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he feels that it's not preferable, but since he doesn't given women the benefit of the doubt...
4) Paul Ryan's statement that "...the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life," also dodges (like so many other anti-abortion arguments) the issue of hypocrisy. For instance: to protect the American Way of Life, it's OK to invade a country, kill hundreds of thousands of people, and remove said country's leader. But a woman can't abort her baby to protect her own way of life? If you feel that all life is sacred, you MUST be anti-war. You must also be against the death penalty.
And if any conservative is going to play the "God" card and explain rape-that-results-in-pregnancy by saying that "God works in mysterious ways", then I'd like to borrow my wife's tactic and play the "Alien" card--here's a graphic she Photoshopped-up earlier today:
In every way a child from a rape is a "gift from God," an alien could rape Paul Ryan and leave, in his stomach cavity, a living baby alien, with acid for blood.
When you look at the evidence, both arguments are equally sound.
So, in the end, Paul Ryan has made a statement that should make him utterly unelectable. And by default, it should make Mitt Romney unelectable, as well.
The fact that Romney and Obama are polling neck-and-neck makes me feel very sad for America. Either that or polls are horribly in accurate.
from a post at thepete.com
No comments:
Post a Comment