Paul Ryan: rape is just another “method of conception” (VIDEO)

As reported by Paul Slansky of the Huffington Post, last week Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan gave an interview in which he defended his belief that there should be no exceptions under which abortions were allowable by referring to rape as a “method of conception.” As Slansky writes, “There could be no greater testament to the utter abdication of responsibility by what passes for a “news” media in America in 2012 than that, despite the grotesquerie of this cavalierly callous comment, chances are better than good that this is the first you’re hearing of it.”

Watch Paul Ryan’s comments for yourself.

Ryan’s comments have gotten very little – if any – play in the mainstream media, and I’m absolutely stunned that he could so cavalierly refer to rape as a “method of conception” rather than a horrible act of violence and brutality. Paul Ryan is a despicable human being, and the end to his political career can’t come soon enough.


Related Articles

29 thoughts on “Paul Ryan: rape is just another “method of conception” (VIDEO)

  1. Great catch, don’t know how I missed it.

    Egg and sperm are both “alive” before conception, but somehow the zygote magically usurps all the mother’s legal rights.

  2. WHat a dishonest post again from you he NEVER said rape he said, ”the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,” Just a bunch of liars.

    1. jwayne, I know you’re not a complete moron, so tell me what Paul Ryan was referring to when he talked about the “method of conception.”

      In case you missed it, his comment was made as he was discussing his views on…..wait for it……rape!

    2. It is you who are presenting the bald-faced lie. Try watching the video again. Ryan answered a question asked with precision and specificity. He answered the same way: “the method of conception” (responding to the question asked – in cases of rape or incest) “doesn’t change the definition of life.” Your need to obfuscate is astounding.

  3. I’m absolutely stunned that liberals could so cavalierly refer to abortion as a “method of contraception” rather than a horrible act of violence and brutality. Those are the real despicable human beings.

  4. Yes, FMSN, you articulate the most effective evangelist propaganda there is to oppose abortion. Now, how about you articulate a similar defense for violently and brutally raping a ten year old girl who is then impregnated. Certainly in your immoral universe that rapist’s act is less despicable than one who chooses to abort an embryonic fetus. Surely your moral compass can make its way through extremes. You’ve just stated one: “A horrible act of violence and brutality” So which act is more violent and more brutal – raping a ten year old child or aborting an embryonic fetus?

    Here’s a little more depth for your shallow thought: The child rapist rapes a ten year old girl who lives in a state that allows a rapist to gain custody of a rape victim’s child. Is that child the most despicable human being there is if she, her parents, and her doctors choose an abortion? Are her parents the most despicable human beings there are if they force their child to bear a child? Hopefully she survives the birth. Hopefully she survives unharmed physically or emotionally. But what if she doesn’t?

    And should that child rapist legally receive custody of that raped child’s child – who then is the most despicable human being? If that child had received an abortion as a “method of contraception” – would she be the real despicable human being in this scenario?

    Perhaps the reality of the issues you so carelessly bandy about with your prefabricated rhetoric are too much for your beliefs? Hopefully the reality is more compelling than your thoughtless dogma, you may then reach a humane level of morality. Maybe an “easier” ethical dilemma might help:

    Would it be easier for you to consider a grown woman who has been violently and brutally raped, impregnated, and forced to not only continually have contact with that rapist for the rest of her life because a court has granted him custody of her child, but she must live knowing that the person she must give her child to is a rapist. But, if she would have had an abortion she would have been the most despicable human being in this scenario wouldn’t she?

    Unfortunately, I am not at all stunned that pervasive Anti-intellectualism incapacitates Conservative morality. Conservatives who must arbitrarily choose other people’s morality for them are the real despicable human beings. The truly despicable human beings are those who could even casually compare the violence and brutality and the lasting aftermath of rape with the abortion of an embryonic fetus. FMSN, you are despicable.

  5. My point was that it’s easy for Zach and you and others to name call, yet you condone over one million abortions a year. That is truly despicable.

    Instead of defending millions of needless and horrific murders, you hide behind the small number that result from rape or incest. That is despicable.

    Your main point seems to be with rapist custody. I take no issue with that. So let’s change the law.

    What is anti intellectual is your position which ignores the science of a sonogram that shows a human being with a beating heart. Yet you turn a blind eye and condone a million deaths each and every year. That is a despicable position.

    1. fmsn, I know it’s a difficult concept to grasp, but I support the right to choose, not the act itself.

      I know some conservatives aren’t great with nuance, but I had thought you better than that. There’s a difference between condoning over one million abortions a year and supporting a woman’s right to make choices for herself concerning her body.

      1. Zach I don’t consider life a nuance. Your argument is the biggest cop out of all and the
        position I respect the least. You support allowing others to kill, but would never do it yourself. Would you permit your neighbor the CHOICE to beat his wife even though you would never do it
        Yourself? Again, whatever helps you sleep at night.

        1. Yeah, I guess we can’t all be as enlightened as you and your ilk and just go around attempting to impose our world view on everyone else in a “one size fits all” approach to things.

          You say you support liberty? I say you’re full of shit. You support liberty only when that liberty fits into your narrow world view, picking and choosing who’s worthy of having “liberty” and “freedom.”

          And with that, I’m done with you, because you’re not me wasting my time.

      2. Fmsn, if you support the GOVERNMENT using to force to compel a woman to bear a child she doesn’t want, you’re not “conservative.”

    2. Fmsn, if you think it’s a death, why are you not out getting a death certificate for each and every miscarriage? Why are you not demanding a proper burial for the remains?

  6. We can all see your point, FMSN. Why don’t you try flexing your moral muscles and respond to the scenarios I laid forth? You have demonstrated your ability to moralize. You have not demonstrated that you are capable of moral reasoning. You have demonstrated that you are capable of passive absorption, but not of independent rational thought. No one is hiding behind the number of pregnancies that occur from rape or incest. Rape and incest are points that reveal Conservative extremism, and they are more than numbers – victims of rape and incest are traumatized, victimized PEOPLE, not numbers. The “million” women who choose abortion are PEOPLE, not numbers. That Conservatives think they should dictate what these women think and what these women do is authoritarian coercion. The callous and despicable position that Conservatives hide behind is a falsifying conflation of numbers that demonizes and dehumanizes women by attempting to make them into mass murderers.

    I’ll say it again – what is despicable, FMSN, is that your position conflates the personal, moral, ethical choice of an individual with a holocaust of millions of people. Millions of people are not aborted per year. People are not aborted. Fetuses are not people. I don’t turn a blind eye to anything. A woman’s decision to have an abortion is not my business. No one is hiding behind the number of pregnancies that occur resulting from rape or incest. It is you who are hiding behind some pretty hateful blinders by insisting abortion is synonymous with murder. It is not. Comparing abortion to holocaust and homicide is despicable. You should be ashamed of yourself for your immoral limitations. Use your God-given brains instead of absorbing right wing propaganda.

    It is not my decision to choose for those “million” women what to believe and what not to believe. What is despicable is forcing women to bear children against their will by imposing your beliefs upon their wombs. What is despicable is for you to insert yourself into anyone else’s private business and further insist that the government does. If the government compels women to give birth against their will, the government is compelled to financially support those children from birth to death. If you don’t want an “entitlement society” – don’t create one with Medieval policy.

    We could argue with real science about fetal heart tones and a suite of medical realities – but your opinion about credible scientific data does not give you the right to choose what that data means for anybody else or how that data applies to somebody else’s personal situation. That is what is despicable.

    I would encourage you, again, to respond to the moral dilemmas I laid out earlier. You indicate that you disagree with rapist custody – that’s not my “main” point, but let’s keep going. Nice that you want to change those laws, but the reality is they are still in place, meaning real circumstances for real people. Which is the more horrible act of violence and brutality – raping a ten year old child or aborting an embryonic fetus?

    1. Your comments are very telling. “Fetuses are not people”. — when do they become people? Birth?! Some have argued babies under the age of one aren’t really people yet either. I guess if you go down that road there’s not much difference between offing a six month old in or out of the womb.

      I didn’t know the science of a sonogram was a matter of opinion. That would be laughable if it weren’t so attrocious. There is little difference between the holocaust and one million abortions. Who cares if it happens one at a time. But whatever helps you sleep better at night.

    2. Of course both rape and abortion are horrible acts. In one situation a woman’s life is forever changed. In the other, a human life is ended and never given a chance. So what’s your point?

      How about this: suppose we change rapist custody laws and then outlaw abortion? Or would you accept only allowing abortion in these rare and terrible circumstances? What if Barack Obama had been aborted? What if the person who had the cure for AIDS and cancer was aborted? Answer some of these questions. But it doesn’t change the fact that Zach and you consider people who defend life are despicable, while you both support people like Obama and Feingold who condone mass murder and even infanticide.

  7. Yes, my comments are very telling. Fetuses are not people. They don’t have personhood. That’s my opinion – but I haven’t any right to legally force that upon anyone anymore than you have a right to force a sonogram on anyone. I find it amazing that the one instance Conservatives accept scientific data it is in their attempt to define fetal personhood in order to deny the personhood of women. Despicable. Try taking the moral high ground with Conservative denial of the ACTUAL PERSONS who are born in this country and the actual not hypothetical MOTHERS who must care for them and themselves. Heinous Paul Ryan will defund every program that gives those REAL LIVE CHILDREN a chance in this world. Despicable.

    1. When does personhood begin? Day of birth? Day of planned C section? So the difference between a live person and a dead nonperson is a birth canal and a few minutes?

      What about premature babies, should a woman be able to kill it? What about a botched abortion where the baby is delivered alive? What if someone wanted to abort if they knew the child would be gay?

      I’ll wait for your answers. The difference in our arguments is that yours is baseless and abhorrent and mine is decided science.

      1. Fmsn,

        When does personhood begin?

        Day(sic) of birth?

        Day of planned C section?

        So the difference between a live person and a dead nonperson is a birth canal and a few minutes?

        What about premature babies, should a woman (sic) be able to kill it?

        What about a botched abortion where the baby is delivered alive?

        What if someone wanted to abort if they knew the child would be gay?

        I’ll wait for your answers.

      2. Fmsn, what about capital punishment? Was Seal Team 6 killing Osama a murder or was it justified?

        I’ll wait for your answers?

  8. FMSN,
    You are not defending life. A fetus is not independent of its mother. It is the mother’s decision to choose. The only life in question is the mother’s life. You are not defending her, and it is not your decision to choose for her. So when you insist on invading on the most intimate decision that should be made between only a woman and her doctor then, yes, you are despicable. You may feel brave and self-righteous by believing you are so gallantly defending a fetus – but that position is not only arrogant, it is precisely the emotive response that Anti-Choice propaganda intends. You don’t think for yourself. You parrot propaganda.

    Back to the moral dilemmas: Okay, so you answered the easy one. What about the original question? Which is more despicable – which is the more horrible act of violence and brutality – raping a ten year old child or aborting an embryonic fetus?

    Suppose we change rapist custody laws and outlaw abortion? Doesn’t solve the authoritarian coercion into the private lives of women or girls who have been raped. Now, if the United States adopted a genuinely compassionate and moral safety net as they do in most of Scandinavia, then I might ponder authoritarian coercion, but even then I think I’d have a difficult time getting there. If the Conservative position on education were to shift toward creating high quality public education which included science based sex education accessible to all children, then I might ponder authoritarian coercion. If Conservatives were to grant women equal pay in the workforce while at the same time Conservatives reverse their economic ideologies based on no science or data or evidence of any kind – so that families could prosper as they did post-WWII through the 70’s then I might consider authoritarian coercion. But just changing rapist custody laws? No.

    What if Barack Obama had been aborted? Barack Obama is a person. It isn’t possible to abort a person.

    What if the person who had the cure for AIDS and cancer was aborted? Those would be people. It isn’t possible to abort people. While heroic to believe a single person will discover the cure to AIDS and cancer, that person would have drawn on generations of research before them and some of that publicly funded. So the idea of a single person discovering the cures to these two diseases isn’t in the realm of sense to begin with.

  9. “What if someone wanted to abort if they knew the child would be gay?”

    How about conservative?

  10. FMSN,
    Personhood begins when the person is physically separated from the mother.

    When you start engaging in scientific enquiry, I will respond in kind. You have yet to indicate that you comprehend science. You have thus far indicated you are well versed in propagandist memes, but not in science. If you were able to rationally discuss the science of life on this planet I’d be all too pleased. Thus far you’ve communicated only in propagandist frames.

    Should a woman be able to kill a premature baby? As in Partus praetemporaneus less than 37 weeks gestational age? As in a leading cause of death in infants? A person under 37 weeks gestational age is unable to survive on its own outside of the womb. Is a woman who has a premature birth, then, a murderess? Premature birth stops a beating heart. So, no. A woman should not be able to have a preterm birth. A woman should not be able to kill a premature baby and I should make that decision for her.

    The rates of women dying in childbirth in the United States are increasing. If a woman dies in childbirth is that preborn child a murderer? Is that born child a murderer? Are you defending life when you allow homicidal births to occur? What if that murderous baby is a gay baby? Or an hermaphroditic baby? Or an androgynous baby? Or a murderous baby of indeterminate gender? Is that baby any more or any less matricidal?

    What about a botched abortion where the baby is delivered alive? You will have to use all your scientific prowess to elaborate on that one before I can answer it.

    What if someone wanted to abort if they knew the child would be gay? Then someone wanted to abort because they knew the child would be gay.

    Which is more brutally violent: raping a ten year old child or aborting an embryonic fetus?

  11. There are those that think that wives should submit to their husbands. There are those who think that a pregnant woman should not make the decision to abort without the father’s consent. So, if an authoritarian husband disagrees with a submissive wife, and thinks a wife should not terminate her pregnancy, when that woman dies in childbirth, then it is both the homicidal child and the homicidal husband who are responsible for that mother’s death. Let’s not be nuanced about responsibility and consequences for individual decisions or authoritarian coercive action. Would this not be the most ethical position to take?

    Sonography and echolocation are fascinating technologies. Bats use it. Dolphins use it. Whales use it. Even the platypus uses it – odd and strange as it may seem. Now we have the technology. We can’t ignore the science when we see through sonographic technology the beating hearts of God’s creatures existing in the ocean, in lakes, in rivers, it’s unmistakable, nothing nuanced about life. Billions of individual lives all – life – life – life – except in the Dead Zones where aquatic life dies because of human life – human pollution. Are you defending life when you stand idly by and allow Dead Zones worldwide to expand in size and scope of death? Billions of individual deaths and many more billions when every other loss of life attributable to climate change, deforestation, oil spills, so many many unsound practices that end un-nuanced life are included – by far the most sustained, widespread holocaust yet to occur in the history of humankind. Are you defending life when you condone the practices that cause the largest loss of death in the history of humankind?

    Are you defending life when you defend Mitt Romney’s energy policies written by the life-threatening oil and gas multi-national conglomerates? Are you defending the life of the child who develops cancer due to proximity to toxic waste facilities, then dies of that disease? Would you permit your neighbor, the corporate person, the choice to kill that child with toxic waste even though you would never expose that child to toxic waste yourself? How many children have been killed by corporate people? If life isn’t nuanced, then really the numbers of human people that corporate people kill needn’t be limited to children. The numbers of adults, proto-adults (pre-adults if you prefer), pre-born persons, embryonic blastulas, what have you… consider them all and the numbers increase – that’s the main point isn’t it? Un-nuanced life in massive numbers being murdered each year?
    Corporate persons murder 3.5 million people each year from gold mining, that is, mercury pollution from gold mining.
    Industrial park lead pollution caused by Corporate People kill 3 million people here.
    Pesticides from Big Agriculture – those are really big Corporate people, but they only kill 2.2 million human people per year (the actual number is higher but difficult to calculate given the un-nuanced nature of life)
    The homicidal practice of lead smelting murders another 2 million or so human people each year.
    Chromium pollution from murderous leather tanners ends the lives of more than 1.8 million per year.
    Lead pollution from improper batter recycling – I suppose that would indict both human people and corporate people – that’s another 1.2 million murders.
    Arsenic in groundwater? Probably about 750,000 homicides caused by Corporate People.
    And pesticide manufacturing (pesticide being a holocaust upon pests whose numbers have gone uncounted) – those Corporate People responsible have another 700,000 murders to answer for.

    Are you defending life here? Oh, perhaps you are – corporate life.

    But are you defending human life? The holocaust of human life in numbers astronomically higher than those you attribute to murdering mothers. When you and your Anti-Choice ilk actually adopt pro-life policies which prevent the deaths, but instead enhance quality of life – all un-nuanced life – you can call yourself pro-life. Until then you are fraudulent propagandists touting a political agenda which harms more lives and ends more lives then it “saves.”

    Which is the more brutally violent: raping a ten year old child or aborting an embryonic fetus?

Comments are closed.