Brace yourself for the latest meme to hit the politosphere: the word is now that Paul Ryan has “softened” his views on abortion. Ryan has long opposed abortion in all cases save in a few cases where he believes it may be necessary to save the life of the mother. This means that he has opposed abortion in the case of rape. But in this post-Akin political environment, so the narrative goes, Ryan, in the interests of being a team player, is renouncing his opposition to rape exceptions.
What set this off? First there was the statement made by various Romney campaign spokespeople in the aftermath of Akin’s blunder:
“Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape”
Then there were Ryan’s responses to some reporters who were pressing him on the abortion/rape issue, and focusing particularly on some legislation he previously supported which made distinctions between different types of rape. Ryan said to the reporters:
“I’m proud of my record. Mitt Romney is going to be president and the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I’m comfortable with it because it’s a good step in the right direction.”
One the basis of one or both of these statements, major news outlets and some in the Catholic blogosphere are claiming that Ryan has “softened” his views on abortion. Or, to put it in Mark Shea’s words, Ryan has “partly renounce[d]” his position. In response to a comment I made on Mark’s blog, he elaborated further:
I just don’t see how anybody can regard movement from “It is always gravely evil to deliberately kill innocent human life” to “I am opposed to the murder of innocent, unborn children except in cases my boss tells me not to be opposed,” or, “unless I feel it jeopardizes my chances of becoming VP” and maintain that Ryan is not compromising.
It is quite obvious to me that Paul Ryan has not said or done a thing to warrant the attribution of such cynical and selfish motives to him – though I do believe he, like most pro-life politicians and even people such as myself, is willing to compromise on a few points to make significant gains, a point I will elaborate on below. In any case, Mr. Shea goes too far. Because I often find his commentary to be fair-minded (even when I disagree), I am surprised at this rather unjustifiable attack on Ryan’s character but also willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. So I will offer my take on these comments and Mark can reply if he feels it’s worth his time.
I’ll start by noting that I have observed a lot of frustration among some Catholic friends of mine who have decided to support neither ticket and are adamant in their choice. The frustration is certainly understandable, since it is clear that the two-party system and the hyper-partisan bickering that defines American political discourse offer no solutions to the major problems facing the country. I respect the decision some have made to support neither candidate, though as I have made clear, I believe it is the wrong decision.
This frustration can manifest itself in healthy ways sometimes. I think Ron Paul’s candidacy, for instance, has been a fundamentally good thing for the country and for the GOP. It has forced the party to take certain issues seriously that it had previously only paid lip-service to. The pro-life movement is another example; frustration with GOP sluggishness on life issues led to the formation of a movement that now has the power to demand fealty from anyone who would represent Republican voters in Congress.
But frustration can manifest itself in unhealthy ways as well. In some cases, the attacks on Ryan I have witnessed from the “fed up” section of the Catholic commentariat have been equal in fervor and as loose with the facts as those coming from the pro-abortion left. I’m not suggesting that the “fed up” Catholic contingent is comprised of crypto-leftist Obamaites, not at all. But I will say that the general premise that “both parties are evil” is leading some people not only to sniff out nothing but evil, but to also see evil where it doesn’t exist.
I think this may be what is happening with those denouncing Ryan now. It is manifest that Ryan has not “softened his position” on abortion, that he has not abandoned, in full or in part, his opposition to rape exceptions. The Romney campaign stated that a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose exceptions for abortion in the case of rape. Ryan himself explained the significance of this statement: it is Romney, not Ryan, who will be president. It is Romney, not Ryan, who will set the agenda. It is ultimately Romney, and not Ryan, that the campaign spokeswoman was speaking for.
Exploring Ryan’s comments further, moreover, it becomes quite clear that he hasn’t abandoned or changed his position on abortion at all. He said he was comfortable with Romney’s position, because it is a “step in the right direction.” What this obviously means is that while it is good that Romney is opposed to 99% of all abortions (and this is undeniably good), he still has another step to take. His position is still not completely acceptable from a moral point of view. And maybe Ryan himself can be the one to persuade him on this point.
Frankly there is absolutely nothing here for a pro-life Catholic to be miffed about. For decades we have understood, or should understand by now, that the vast majority of Americans and people in general are morally confused on a great many issues. That we have managed to maintain a status quo in which the majority of public opinion can periodically be labeled pro-life is in itself nothing short of a miracle. To expect the average voter to have a morally consistent view on the sanctity of unborn life is expecting almost too much. I would love to see it happen, but my gut tells me that the vast majority of Americans, even if they come to oppose the 99% of abortions that have nothing to do with rape or complicated health issues that threaten the life of the mother, will always demand exceptions in these cases.
If we take this as an unalterable given, then Ryan’s position is just about as principled and realistic as a consistent pro-life Catholic can come to. Without ever having actually stated or even implied in his own words that he believes innocent lives can be taken because they were conceived in rape, he is willing to work with and even campaign with 99%ers, while still maintaining that the ultimate goal would be to eliminate all abortions. This is exactly what I believe myself, in fact.
I simply don’t believe that one can honestly look at this position and consider it an unacceptable compromise, or maintain that he has “softened” or “partly abandoned” his views. I seriously doubt it is some “new” position Ryan has adapted. Again, the fact that we have to accept and work with people who want to allow rape/life-of-mother exceptions has been long established in pro-life politics. If we want to open up a discussion over whether this practice in general is acceptable, I would welcome that debate. But let’s not act like Ryan was one day espousing the sort of extreme sectarian position that would reject all compromise and collaboration with 99%ers, only to abandon this heroic stance when he was nominated to the vice-presidency. I think it is far more likely that this is what Ryan has always believed. And it isn’t a problem at all, not for me, and not for many in the pro-life movement who have accepted political reality.
Mark suggested I might be the one going in the wrong direction, from holding that Obama is simply worse than Romney-Ryan to attempting to “justify this absurd ticket.” So in closing, I will say that on life issues, the ticket needs to be justifiable. If Romney-Ryan really is unacceptable on life issues, then it is unacceptable, period. Allegations that the ticket is significantly deviating form acceptable positions on these issues (or in this case, drifting in such a direction) deserve to be taken seriously. And in this case, the allegations are absolutely bogus.
I’m sorry, Mary De Voe, but enough is enough. I deleted your comment because it is radically off-topic. You have a blog. I suggest you post that information there, and post here comments that are relevant to the issue at hand. Nothing personal.
“because it’s a good step in the right direction”
It would be a giant leap in the right direction. Like Lincon in his fight against slavery, Ryan is willing to support legislative measures that hem it in and restrict it while never losing sight of the goal.
“But I will say that the general premise that “both parties are evil” is leading some people not only to sniff out nothing but evil, but to also see evil where it doesn’t exist.”
Precisely.
“Politics is the art of the possible” and “politics involves compromise.” The compromise that Paul Ryan suggests does not violate his strong pro-life stand in principle. The choice the GOP has is to do what is the most- morally accepted public viewpoint right now, OR lose out to Obama’s absolute support for abortion to the point of infanticide, aka partial birth- recall his own actions as Illinois State Senator when he voted against funds for babies who survived abortion. The US Electorate needs further education on the absolute right to life of all babies, and hear the stories of all survivors of rape and incest. The Government is not Jesus’ Body, the Church. Extreme idealists do not make the best politicians The ideal for all issues is still to be achieved- Isaiah’s Lion is still chewing on the Lamb and the cash for plow-shares is being dumped on unwinnable wars.
Thank you, Bonchamps. It would be fruitful if certain Ryan critics actually examined the entirety of his comments rather than selected portions. It’s quite clear what Ryan meant, and that his personal opinion had not changed.
Ryan may well not have played the “step in the right direction” angle before, but then he hasn’t been a vice presidential candidate before. His comments this week can be read to be in line with Evangelium Vitae’s “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done.” (They can also accommodate a power-over-principle reading, but that butts up against his right to a good name.)
Personally, I think this week’s lesson is not that Ryan is a power-over-principle politician, but that we need to evaluate candidates in an “art of the possible” light, not in a “speech to a friendly audience” light. If we’re not supposed to think less of a politician because he can’t fully effect his policies, we should nevertheless account for what he can’t effect in judging him as a candidate.
“I often find his commentary to be fair-minded (even when I disagree), I am surprised at this rather unjustifiable attack on Ryan’s character but also willing to grant the benefit of the doubt.”
You’re being charitable to Mark here, which is a benefit of the doubt that he rarely gives to the targets of his diatribes. The truth is that this sort of thing has become Mark’s stock in trade over the years. I’m completely disgusted by Mark’s calumny of Ryan, and I’m not even supporting the Romney/Ryan ticket (as anyone who has even slightly paid attention to anything I’ve written in the last 5 years knows that I will NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES vote for Mitt Romney).
Mark, as is his schtick, will of course deny that he calumniated anyone, and will instead claim that he was merely pointing out “blah, blah, blah.” Which, of course, is total BS. Here is what Mark said: that Paul Ryan “partly renounced his pro-life convictions” and “Ryan now opposes the murder of innocent human beings [only] where it is convenient to Romney”. Mark is stating these things as fact – that Ryan has renounced his belief that there should be no rape exception to outlawing abortion. Apart from a press release from Romney HQ that merely reaffirms that their formerly pro-abort presidential candidate is, indeed, still at least somewhat pro-abort, Mark has absolutely NOTHING – ZERO -ZILCH – NADA – to back up his assertion that Paul Ryan has “partly renounced his pro-life convictions”.
Which makes Mark’s statement a lie. He has painted Ryan is a false light for no other purpose than to brandish his own “see-I-told-you-so-pox-on-both-your-houses” bona fides. And I say that as a card-carrying member of the “pox-on-both-your-houses” club. Now, Mark will point to the press release mentioned above, and will highlight “Ryan” where the release mentions the “Romney/Ryan” ticket” and will say “SEE!!!! Ryan now supports murdering babies where it’s convenient to Romney.” Problem is that absolutely no words ever actually uttered by Paul Ryan, and no actions ever taken by Paul Ryan, could EVER lead any rational-thinking sentient human being to form the conclusion that Ryan has “partly renounced his pro-life convictions” or thinks it’s okay to murder children conceived in rape if it means electing Romney.
So, I ask again: what solid proof – from Paul Ryan – does Mark have to back up his words? None. And what “proof” he does allude to doesn’t pass the basic smell test that our Church has provided us:
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
Has Mark done this where Ryan is concerned? Has he, with sufficient proof, given the benefit of the most favorable interpretation in concluding that Paul Ryan (who has otherwise shown throughout his political career that he takes his pro-life beliefs seriously) has “partly renounced his pro-life convictions” and “now opposes the murder of innocent human beings [only] where it is convenient to Romney”?
I submit not.
I’m missing something. Is Ryan the typical Three Exceptions Republican that we’ve endured for decades, or is he two?
Scott, my best answer would be to “Google it” and read his position for yourself. I don’t say “Google it” dismissively, but rather as a way of saying don’t listen to what someone else claims Ryan’s position to be, but do yourself the favor of searching out his views for yourself.
That said, my understanding is that Ryan is a “One-Exception” Republican, in that he believes in a very narrow exception where the life of the mother is threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term. Again, though, don’t take my word for it, as I’m sure you can find something more definitive if you look for it.
But that press release from Romney HQ is NOT the place where you or anyone else will find Ryan’s position. The funny thing is that my take-away from reading that statement was “Yep, that’s the Romney I know so well and for whom I will NEVER vote.” I certainly didn’t take the views of the top of the ticket as reflective of the views of the bottom of the ticket. Mark’s take-away, on the other hand, appears to be “Aha! Another opportunity to tarnish the pro-life credentials of yet another prominent RepubliCath pro-lifer and to put another nail in the coffin of the RepubliCath pro-life myth!” But Mark could accomplish the aim of questioning undying pro-life fealty to the Republican Party by pointing to Romney himself. There’s no need to try to drag Ryan down by claiming he is someone who is “pro-life” only when it’s convenient.
Bonchamps: I am good with that. “If Romney-Ryan really is unacceptable on life issues, then it is unacceptable, period.” bears repeating
Jay, I respect and understand your view of Romney, even if I disagree with it. We are in complete agreement on Ryan and Shea.
I’m confused here. I was under the impression that Mr. Shea supported Ron Paul. Now that may be a misremembering on my part. But if it is not then it is worth pointing out that Ron Paul’s position on abortion is a tenth amendment one in that Roe should ve overturned and the issue should be returned to the states to decide as they will. Which would definitively *not* be a no exceptions abortion position.
Again, I may be misremembering, but I could almost swear I remember a column of his not too far back laying out why a Catholic could support Ron Paul in good conscience. If that is incorrect then the point is obviously moot.
Fantastic thread, I’ve got to say. The Evangelium Vitae quotation couldn’t be more on-point. And the Catechism passage, well, that’s applicable pretty much everywhere.
I think the reason for the anger directed against Ryan has to do with the continued distrust of Romney. According to the narrative, Romney couldn’t be trusted on conservative principles, so his VP had to be perfect. He chose Ryan, who is perceived as having unassailable credentials. So Ryan was supposed to keep Romney honest. The abortion exception statements shattered the narrative. Now, it’s seen as Romney contaminating Ryan, or Ryan not being strong enough to stand up to Romney.
Of course, all of these narratives are fiction. They’re our interpretations, and we demand that all the characters wear white hats or black hats. We ascribe mystical powers to a VP nominee, or ridiculously claim that Romney can’t be trusted on abortion, or just as ridiculously claim that Romney can be trusted on abortion. It’s more complicated than that.
I’m comfortable with it because it’s a good step in the right direction.
I really don’t see how that can be interpreted as giving up his principles. Legalization of abortion did not come as a single step – it started with severing the link between intercourse and procreation through acceptance of contraception (first morally at Lambeth, and then legally through Griswold). Roe v. Wade was the culmination of many steps. Ryan is just doing it in the opposite direction, and the most realistic way it will happen – step by step. This is similar to claiming that a coach doesn’t really want to ever score a touchdown because he called for a 5 yard slant for a first down at his own 20 yard line rather than throwing a deep route hail Mary (sorry, it’s football season).
It could still be a “no exceptions” position.
Ron Paul’s position is a technical legal one – he is not saying that abortion should be legal, he is saying that as a Constitutional law matter, it is a decision for the states. If he were a STATE congressman he would feel 100% comfortable voting for a STATE law banning abortion. Whether he is right on the Con law matter is a different issue, but one that RCs can legitimately disagree about (it is, incidentally, the same position Scalia holds and has held for many years). So his issue is not whether abortion should be banned, but through what legal mechanism.
“I’m completely disgusted by Mark’s calumny of Ryan…”
I agree. I believe Mark is deeply engaged in calumny – an intrinsic evil.
Yes, but that obviously leaves the door open to states choosing to go the full-on abortion-into-the-ninth-month way, too. I understand the premise of the tenth amendment solution (and I supported Thompson last time around whose view was similar, so this isn’t necessarily a criticism of Ron Paul) and am not necessarily condemning it. Claiming that Paul himself may be 100% against abortions with no exceptions personally and might vote for an outright ban if he were a state legislator is fine. But I’m not going to pretend that states like, say California or New York aren’t going to have an abortion free-for-all if we send it back to the states. He may vote against it, but he is fine with other states voting for it. And as a matter of pure Constitutional law, an amendment to protect the lives of the unborn is perfectly in line with Constitutional procedures outlined in the document as well.
My point is that it seems to me to be a bit disingenuous to freak out over Paul Ryan’s percieved shift in position if you support someone who is OK with letting states decide its a-ok for folks to abort all they want.
The irony here is that Mark’s preferred candidate, Ron Paul, also favors a rape exception to laws against abortion.
Wow. So Mr. Well-Informed Practicing Catholic isn’t aware that St. David of Wales was the product of a rape?
Denouncing Akin’s views is not the same as saying that the life of a child conceived through violent rape is less valuable than that of a child conceived through loving intimacy. He can reject Akin without rejecting the immorality of abortion.
I hope Ryan thinks this over–it is very disappointing.
Good post, Bonchamps. One would think that the words of the self-appointed piety / purity police of the Catholic Blogger Magisterium that seems to have arisen in this day and age of the internet should carry more weight than those of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him (many of whom have actually come out with kind words to say about Ryan’s Catholic witness).
Paul Ryan is a good Catholic witness. What kind of witness is Mark Shea’s calumny (a term someone else used above, not me)?
Icefalcon,
I think what’s disappointing is your complete inability to understand that Ryan hasn’t rejected the immorality of abortion.
Everyone Else,
I think Ron Paul’s view on abortion is perfectly acceptable. We aren’t morally obliged to be federal supremacists. Few elected officials have spoken as eloquently about the natural right to life – and even written a book about it – as Dr. Paul has. He does so as one of the leading representatives of libertarianism as well, a movement that has historically not been too friendly to the right to life of the unborn. I’d say he’s probably done more for the pro-life cause through his argumentation than some “no exceptions, only a federal solution is possible” politicians have done with their votes.
Actually, what you are accusing Mark of is properly rash judgment rather than calumny.
I think icefalcon’s comment touches on the downside of the “step in the right direction” approach taken by a VP candidate. There is a conflict between making one’s personal opposition known and the inherent deference to the presidential candidate’s position. A “personally opposed, but not in charge” argument is a dis-integrated witness to the truth. It may be justified under the circumstances, but it is not without its bad effects.
I’ll just say “ditto” to Donald’s 4:22AM (really?!?!?!) comment.
” A “personally opposed, but not in charge” argument is a dis-integrated witness to the truth.”
But Ryan explained WHY, and his explanation still gave witness to the truth. When you say someone’s views are a “step in the right direction”, you do a service to both that person as well as those who have already taken those steps. It was just about the best thing he could have said in the circumstances he was in and I can’t imagine why anyone would have a problem with it.
What’s disappointing is that people continue to ascribe to Ryan – out of either maliciousness or ignorance – views that belong to his running mate.
Surprise, surprise, a presidential nominee who once ran to Ted Kennedy’s left on abortion is … SHOCKER!!! … soft on abortion. The vice-presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, by all indications, is not similarly soft on abortion (absent more proof than what has been offered thus far), but believes that Romney’s views are a move closer to the ideal than are Obama’s (and the current law of the land under Roe and Casey).
WOW! Time to “think this over”. I wouldn’t vote for Romney under any circumstances, but nevertheless believe he’s closer to me on the issue than what the current law allows. In that sense, yes, even a ban on abortion with exceptions is better than what we currently have.
http://takimag.com/article/satan_thy_name_is_paul_ryan#axzz24ODOHdAB
Possibly the best wrap-up anti-Ryan views I’ve seen.
“But Ryan explained WHY, and his explanation still gave witness to the truth.”
The fact that an explanation was required establishes that his witness to the truth as a VP candidate is not as clear as his witness to the truth as a member of the House.
Here’s a simple test: Can Ryan the VP candidate unconditionally endorse Ryan the House Member’s Sanctity of Human Life Act?
Actually, what you are accusing Mark of is properly rash judgment rather than calumny.”
The object is no less harmed by the accusation if the speaker is being “rash” vs. being intentional. At some point, “rashness” becomes reckless disregard for the truth.
But, for the sake of charity, I’ll consider amending my assessment of Mark’s statements from being calumny to instead being rashness that exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth. Honestly, however, I don’t think that particular spin puts him in much better stead.
“…I’ll consider amending my assessment of Mark’s statements from being calumny to instead being rashness that exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth. Honestly, however, I don’t think that particular spin puts him in much better stead.”
Perhaps Mark Shea would do well to focus on the girth of problems in his own life instead of the lack of girth of problems in Paul Ryan’s life.
Can’t that be said of all of us?
Tom K.,
“Can Ryan the VP candidate unconditionally endorse Ryan the House Member’s Sanctity of Human Life Act?”
I don’t see why not. I don’t see anything in his statements indicating that he could not or would not. I don’t honestly believe for a moment that Romney has demanded from Ryan total agreement on the “hard cases” or prohibited him from speaking on or endorsing legislation that would outlaw all abortions. Such suggestions – and Mark did suggest as much – are really outrageous.
[…] Has Ryan “Softened” His Pro-Life Views? – Bonchamps, The American Catholic […]
” Such suggestions – and Mark did suggest as much – are really outrageous.”
For my part, I don’t find it at all outrageous to suggest that a vice presidential candidate, to say nothing of a vice president, will not publicly work for the passage of legislation which the presidential candidate, to say nothing of the president, opposes. (Such, at least, were the circumstances I was trying to invoke by mentioning the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which on my reading entails legal prohibition of abortion in all cases.)
Tom K.,
The suggestion was that Ryan was either a cynical power-seeker or a feckless coward. You’re rephrasing what was said in very neutral terms. We aren’t talking about what “a VP candidate” does in theory – we’re talking about what some people, like Mark Shea, are saying about one man, Paul Ryan.
“But, for the sake of charity, I’ll consider amending my assessment of Mark’s statements from being calumny to instead being rashness that exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth.”
And part of my re-assessing whether it’s “calumny” vs. “rashness that exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth” hinges on whether Mark persists in his claims, without further proof to back them up, that Ryan has “partly renounced his pro-life convictions” or that “Ryan now opposes the murder of innocent human beings [only] where it is convenient to Romney”.
So far, at least in response to commenters at his post, Mark appears to be doubling down on his claims. In my book, that doesn’t lead one to easily dismiss it as “rashness”.
So far, at least in response to commenters at his post, Mark appears to be doubling down on his claims.
Well, of course.
If you don’t have a tolerance for that, and for a “pox on both houses” approach, don’t read him. Or do, and realize you’re going to be annoyed. *shrug*
“It’s a good start” is a statement that would clearly indicate, in a polite way, that more needed to be done; “step in the right direction” is just a rephrasing.
Foxfier,
As I stated above, I am a card-carrying member of the “pox-on-both-your-houses” club. I’m voting for the Constitution Party’s candidate, Virgil Good, who has a 100% pro-life without exceptions stance. Even if Goode weren’t on the ballot, I’d still NEVER vote for Mitt Romney.
But being a member of the “pox-on-both-your-houses” club doesn’t excuse either “calumny” or “rashness exhibiting a total disregard for the truth”. And the only reason I read and commented on Mark’s post on the subject was because someone brought it to my attention. Otherwise, I don’t read him (or any other blog these days apart from this one and Creative Minority Report).
In fact, I don’t read or write on my own blog much anymore (although I did post yesterday -for the first time in 2 months – to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the death of Irish soldier, statesman, and hero, Michael Collins).
Jay-
I would class you as a “they’re both wrong” sort, rather than “they’re equally wrong” sort. One is respectable, the other is cheap grace.
I <3 CMR, too. ^.^
@Bonchamps,
My comments weren’t meant to be a criticism or condemnation of Ron Paul’s views on how to handle the abortion issue legally (as I said before, I supported Fred Thompson last time around and his views on the subject were similar). Like I said at the end of my last post, I just find it disingenuous that Mr. Shea, who I believe supports Ron Paul- whose own position would legally allow states to permit all abortions if they so choose- is upset about Ryan’s perceived shift in position.
I’ve always really enjoyed reading Mr. Shea’s work on the faith, but it seems to me that when he gets into applying those principles in the political arena he goes off the rails into hysterical territory.
True, Foxfier.
In all fairness, the question as to whether the decision regarding abortion’s legality does or should rest with the states is quite different than the question of whether abortion should ever be legal and if so under what circumstances. The notion that the answers are yes and no respectively is quite logically coherent. That said, the inferential liberties that Shea takes with Ryan’s statements and positions are not logically coherent, but just emotional rants.
My own considered view is that absent a constitutional amendment, the abortion decision does rest with states. Indeed, one can make a case that some of the same animations that justified the post-Civil War civil rights amendments also apply to the unborn and the protections they need, in which case a constitutional amendment may well be the most sensible answer — even if politically implausible.
I would class you as a “they’re both wrong” sort, rather than “they’re equally wrong” sort. One is respectable, the other is cheap grace.
Yeah, that would be my take as well. One group recognizes that there are legitimate differences between parties and ideologies, the other wallows in a sort of self-righteous loathing of everything.
“4:22AM (really?!?!?!)”
Yep! I normally turn in at 10 PM and rise at 4:00 AM. I find the early morning hours to be very productive.
*cry* I use to love early mornings, got up at 5 all through high school, one of the few folks that was well rested even though I NEED at least 8 hours of sleep. Then I had children that agree with their father– 10PM is just STARTING on “bed time.”
Oh I never felt more helpless in my life Foxfier than at a 3:00 AM feeding with my twin baby boys with both of them howling! Until my wife and I broke up the week between us with me taking Friday, Saturday and Sunday and her taking the remainder of the week, she was staying at home at the time, we were complete zombies for the first few weeks after our twins were born!
Far too many words have been spilled on this topic.
A president who is partially pro-life is a step on the right direction from where we are today. That we are even discussing this says more about the likes of Mark Shea than it does about Paul Ryan.
The Catholics I know agrees with Romney’s position on abortion when it comes to rape. I consider Romney to be a moderate conservative & Ryan more conservative but not an extremist. Anyway, I like these 2 men as they are both very decent.
In November, you get to display your Catholic “bona fides.”
Cast your vote for the 88% pro-life team or for the 0% pro-life regime.