Paul Ryan’s abortion stance “consistent, not crazy”
Though most of the political squabbling over vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will concern his controversial fiscal policies, the fact that the Wisconsin congressman is also staunchly pro-life guarantees he’ll be targeted with a secondary narrative about being an anti-choice extremist….
“Extreme” in the narrow, strategic sense of how far from majority opinion these views are? Maybe. But extreme in the sense of being far removed from reason and justice? Not at all.
If the unborn are live humans with unalienable rights, then they don’t automatically become something else just because of a pregnancy’s circumstances or the specific technique that endangers them.
Ryan’s views are consistent, not crazy.
~ Calvin Freiburger, Live Action, August 13
[Image via deafhooddiscourses.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I don’t even think his pro life stance will be the secondary narrative–but the primary focus. His fiscal policies aren’t that controversial, and Democrats are starting to lose their grip on the Medicare thing. All they have is the moral debate and personal attacks. And I think (and hope) that on the moral / cultural stuff, they’ve misread the majority in this country.
“If the unborn are live humans with unalienable rights, then they don’t automatically become something else just because of a pregnancy’s circumstances ”
It’s funny, the same people who will call you a horrible and/or crazy person if you want to ban abortion without exceptions will call you a hypocrite if you do support exceptions. So I’m inclined to agree that it’s great that Ryan is consistent,, let the critics call him what they will.
Yeah, JDC. I’ve noticed that same thing. And I used to be one of those “with exceptions” kinda people. I thought not making exceptions for cases of rape was wrong, (because at the time, my argument was primarily the consequences aspect of a willful action) and that NOT allowing for those exceptions was working against us as Pro-Lifers. But, the more I was backed into a corner by my opponents, the more I was forced to think about it, and the more thinking I did on my own. I realized that they were right-if abortion was wrong, then exceptions were wrong, because the argument I had been making was wrong. It wasn’t about natural consequences for an action. There was no “punishment” involved, because children are not a punishment. They’re simply children, and that fact alone is why NO abortion should be allowed (except in cases where both lives would be lost otherwise). And, from what I can tell, my position and the Pro-Life movement as a whole, has only gotten stronger.
There is NO reason to kill an unborn human being—EVER. You are either a defender or a destroyer of that innocent unborn life. So many that call themselves “pro-life”continue to try and confuse so many others who are confused enough. I personally know of a mother who was told by a doctor that she would die if she did not kill her unborn baby with an abortion. BOTH the mom&baby are ALIVE TODAY, because it was unthinkable that she intentionally kill her baby to save her own life. This DECEPTION of “saving” one life by killing another is made up by the lamestream media. We’ve seen it in tear-jerk movies, and heard it from the pro-abort vitriol. So give up the “if you don’t kill your baby, you’re gonna die”scare tactic. Child-bearing is NOT more dangerous than killing an unborn human being, because we know WITH GREAT CERTAINTY that abortion kills the baby, but the doctor can only give his medical prognosis—a PREDICTION, NOT a fact, about what he THINKS might happen.