• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

IMO a HUGE mistake by Paul Ryan. A horrible statement.

Achem. Ryan also identified correctly that his position is based on reason and science.



Republic Now! said:
Oh jeez. More like Right to Life > Right to body.
Click to expand...

Not really. There's not even a conflict. It's right to life vs. "right to kill."

The first premise of a right to property is that you own yourself, and I agree wholeheartedly that you own your own body and should make choices that affect your body. When you create offspring you have the responsibility to take care of them, however. Their body is not your body. You may not destroy or harm the bodies of other humans.

Doing what you want to your own body ultimately has nothing to do with abortion; parents don't have (and shouldn't have) absolute license to harm, neglect, poison, kill, etc. their offspring.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
It could "mature" into quite a number of things. A late period.
Click to expand...

That would be generally termed as a miscarriage, and a natural occurrence.

Two babies.
Click to expand...

Yes, twins....My wife is one....Oh how horrible! :shock: BTW, that's two lives, not just one...

Or it could split into two and then recombine into one (just curious, if that happens, do you consider a death to have occurred?).
Click to expand...

I'll have to assume that you are talking about Vanishing Twin Syndrome (VTS). And do I consider a death to have occured? Well, the Medical community considers a death to have occured...

A vanishing twin, also known as fetal resorption, is a fetus in a multi-gestation pregnancy which dies in utero and is then partially or completely reabsorbed by the twin.[1]

snip

According to Charles Boklage, a professor in the Department of Pediatrics in the Brody School of Medicine and adjunct professor of biology at East Carolina University, vanishing twins occur in up to one out of every eight multifetus pregnancies and may not even be known in most cases.[4]

Vanishing twin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

So, yeah, a death does occur, and may never have been known to occur. Again, a natural occurrence.

Or it can be one baby and one parasitic twin (same question).
Click to expand...

Then same answer.

A non-viable fetus or stillbirth.
Click to expand...

Stillbirth means what? The BABY has died in the womb....

It could be lots of things other than a regular human child.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you have not shown anything other than medical anomalies due to health issues in gestation of the child, or tragic circumstances that happen naturally in some cases that the body terminates the pregnancy. You have provided NOTHING to show that anything other than a human life is what we are talking about here.

But besides that, what it might be later is irrelevant to what it is now. What it is now is a zygote, embryo, or fetus. None of those things are a baby/infant. That's why they have distinct names.
Click to expand...

No, it is totally relevant. This contortion of the pro abortion to diminish the act by simply not calling it what it is, only serves to mitigate the conscience of those willing to kill their babies for their own convenience.

A baby/infant is an immature self-sufficient human organism. A zygote and an embryo are totally non-viable developmental forms. A fetus is a theoretically viable non-self-sufficient developmental form. None are babies.
Click to expand...

So, you don't think it is a baby until it is born. Does that mean that you endorse late term abortion as well?

Someday, assuming I live to that age, I'll be a senior citizen. Shall I start collecting SS now?
Click to expand...

No, you have to contribute in to collect, so although your premise is flawed here, if you never work a day in your life, and don't contribute anything in, you won't have anything to collect later either.

Look, the vast number of abortions that occur in the United States are for convenience measure, not the right time, mistake, etc...So, the rest of the marginal reasons for abortion to occur such as Health, Rape, Incest I can agree to. As for the abortion as contraceptive measure, absolutely NOT.
 
Objective-J said:
I know this was a segue to him getting ready to talk to abortion but he was making a general statement and I disagree with his statement 100% and its the exact opposite of how a good politician should be.

Im hoping he just wasnt clear and he meant separate in a way they cant be 100% apart but they could be MOSTLY apart.


EVERY GOOD politician should be able to separate them otherwise they dont understand america and they risk being extremely discriminatory and serving themselves and their religion and not the american people.

ANd yes of course there will always be some bleeding and crosstalk (I hope thats what he meant) between who a person is personally and how they will lead but if they feel its "impossible" that is a HUGE flaw as a politician. A politician servers the american people their rights, freedoms and liberties along with the constitution NOT only their own religion, morals and opinions.
Click to expand...

I noticed that, too, and thought MY GOD! He basically has taken a position that's no different from the Muslim Extremist he claims to be vehemently against. Think it through, folks...

We claim that the Islamists are espousing their radical form Islam upon their people and if they could they'd do so against the world spreading their version of Sharia law. How does Paul Ryan's position here differ from those who would hold the world hostage bases on their religious beliefs?

If as a politican you can't separate your public life from your private and/or religious life you're really no different in your thinking from the Islamists. You just aren't using violence to advance your objectives. Instead, you're using your position as a member of Congress to influence legislation exactly as you see it. And how you see it may not be exactly how the People see it. And isn't that how radical governments are formed?

Think about it, people....think about it real hard.
 
ksu_aviator said:
The 10th amendment actually gives a lot of leeway for interpreting what rights an individual holds. Certainly, if you combine the 10th with the Declaration of Independence, you can clearly come up with a right to life. So the debate begins. When is an individual bestowed with the right to life. Right to life'rs say at conception, Pro-choice'rs say at birth. The Constitution doesn't give us guidance, so it is up to the people to debate and determine the appropriate time to bestow rights.

You can also contest that the 5th amendment prevents the loss of one's life without a trial and sense the baby doesn't get a trial, an abortion is not constitutional.
Click to expand...

The Constitution confers citizenship at birth though.

And confers no rights to non-citizens.

Just sayin.
 
Objective Voice said:
I noticed that, too, and thought MY GOD! He basically has taken a position that's no different from the Muslim Extremist he claims to be vehemently against. Think it through, folks...

We claim that the Islamists are espousing their radical form Islam upon their people and if they could they'd do so against the world spreading their version of Sharia law. How does Paul Ryan's position here differ from those who would hold the world hostage bases on their religious beliefs?

If as a politican you can't separate your public life from your private and/or religious life you're really no different in your thinking from the Islamists. You just aren't using violence to advance your objectives. Instead, you're using your position as a member of Congress to influence legislation exactly as you see it. And how you see it may not be exactly how the People see it. And isn't that how radical governments are formed?

Think about it, people....think about it real hard.
Click to expand...


I think you are taking it a bit to the extreme here. Most Presidents have said publicly that faith in God was a indeed an asset to doing the job, and that includes demo's as well as repubs. Also not to mention that the Founders recognized God in the very foundations of this country.
 
What if...? said:
The Constitution confers citizenship at birth though.

And confers no rights to non-citizens.

Just sayin.
Click to expand...

Then I guess when a murderer kills a pregnant woman and is sentenced to death, for the mother, as well as the unborn child, you are saying that his rights are being violated?
 
j-mac said:
Then I guess when a murderer kills a pregnant woman and is sentenced to death, for the mother, as well as the unborn child, you are saying that his rights are being violated?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure states can grant additional rights, just not less than the Constitution enumerates.
 
What if...? said:
Pretty sure states can grant additional rights, just not less than the Constitution enumerates.
Click to expand...

Well, not trying to be difficult here, but that doesn't answer my question, allow me to rephrase a little.....Using a hypothetical let's say that a person is on trial for say beating a pregnant woman to the point where she lives, but the baby dies. Is it murder? Can he be sentenced to death?
 
j-mac said:
I think you are taking it a bit to the extreme here. Most Presidents have said publicly that faith in God was a indeed an asset to doing the job, and that includes demo's as well as repubs. Also not to mention that the Founders recognized God in the very foundations of this country.
Click to expand...

I don't think so and here's why.

You have guys like Justice Scolia, for example, on the SC who has consistantly said that certain things, such as racial discrimation and segregation, abortion and other morally or social issues should be dealt with in the legislature, not the courts. (Source: Book, "American Original," by Joan Biskupic). Imagine then if legislators who believe exactly as Congressman Paul Ryan does draft and vote on bills based not on the desires of their constituents - in this case women who overwhelmingly wish to retain their right to choose - but rather their collectively shared views based on nothing more than their personal and/or religious beliefs? What does that say of politicians who would pass legislation based soley on what they want rather than doing "the will of the People"?
 
Objective Voice said:
I don't think so and here's why.

You have guys like Justice Scolia, for example, on the SC who has consistantly said that certain things, such as racial discrimation and segregation, abortion and other morally or social issues should be dealt with in the legislature, not the courts. (Source: Book, "American Original," by Joan Biskupic). Imagine then if legislators who believe exactly as Congressman Paul Ryan does draft and vote on bills based not on the desires of their constituents - in this case women who overwhelmingly wish to retain their right to choose - but rather their collectively shared views based on nothing more than their personal and/or religious beliefs? What does that say of politicians who would pass legislation based soley on what they want rather than doing "the will of the People"?
Click to expand...


Ok, but you said that they voted not on what their constituents wanted but in some hypothetical block that just ram through legislation because they think it is in the best interest of the people.....Is that right? You mean like the ACA right?
 
j-mac said:
Well, not trying to be difficult here, but that doesn't answer my question, allow me to rephrase a little.....Using a hypothetical let's say that a person is on trial for say beating a pregnant woman to the point where she lives, but the baby dies. Is it murder? Can he be sentenced to death?
Click to expand...

Murder is a statutory creation and I think those statutes all specifically exclude abortion (at least the ones that have survived appeal).
 
j-mac said:
Ok, but you said that they voted not on what their constituents wanted but in some hypothetical block that just ram through legislation because they think it is in the best interest of the people.....Is that right? You mean like the ACA right?
Click to expand...

As stated before, the ACA contains many provisions that were once supported by Republicans AND that still contain measures supported by the people.
 
And also a whole lot of **** most people don't know about nor supported.
 
Objective-J said:
I know this was a segue to him getting ready to talk to abortion but he was making a general statement and I disagree with his statement 100% and its the exact opposite of how a good politician should be.

Im hoping he just wasnt clear and he meant separate in a way they cant be 100% apart but they could be MOSTLY apart.


EVERY GOOD politician should be able to separate them otherwise they dont understand america and they risk being extremely discriminatory and serving themselves and their religion and not the american people.

ANd yes of course there will always be some bleeding and crosstalk (I hope thats what he meant) between who a person is personally and how they will lead but if they feel its "impossible" that is a HUGE flaw as a politician. A politician servers the american people their rights, freedoms and liberties along with the constitution NOT only their own religion, morals and opinions.
Click to expand...

A horrible mistake? By whose naive yardstick?

A politician is the sum of all of his parts. His experiences, his social status, his income, his education, the neighborhood he lives in, his friends, family, religion -- everything. We do not operate, thus make decisions, in vacuums.We elect human beings, not computers. To call it a horrible mistake that Ryan recognizes that is just silly.
 
I agree with Paul Ryan, you shouldn't separate most of your personal beliefs from your politics. If something is wrong then it is wrong :shrug: I want someone who when asked about abortion and says that he believes its wrong because it's a violation of human life will actually stand by that and not try to water down the atrocity of legalized abortion by saying it's a "choice" that you can't weigh in on.
 
Objective-J said:
I know this was a segue to him getting ready to talk to abortion but he was making a general statement and I disagree with his statement 100% and its the exact opposite of how a good politician should be.

Im hoping he just wasnt clear and he meant separate in a way they cant be 100% apart but they could be MOSTLY apart.


EVERY GOOD politician should be able to separate them otherwise they dont understand america and they risk being extremely discriminatory and serving themselves and their religion and not the american people.

ANd yes of course there will always be some bleeding and crosstalk (I hope thats what he meant) between who a person is personally and how they will lead but if they feel its "impossible" that is a HUGE flaw as a politician. A politician servers the american people their rights, freedoms and liberties along with the constitution NOT only their own religion, morals and opinions.
Click to expand...

Link?

:shrug: The dude doesn't see how he can divide himself up - he's just who he is . . . is it a requirement that he be different people to exist?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Link?

:shrug: The dude doesn't see how he can divide himself up - he's just who he is . . . is it a requirement that he be different people to exist?
Click to expand...

I dont have a link but im sure if the debate is anywhere on line it was his opening sentence during the debate when the abortion question was asked.

and who says he has to be a different person to exist? not me :shrug:

but yes to be a good leader IMO he must be able to separate his own religious views and personal views to some point otherwise he could find himself serving his religion and not the country. That is bad for the president of the united states. VERY BAD.

Now like i CLEARLY said in the OP its very possible this is not what he meant or who he is but anybody that cant separate the two is unfit to lead us.
 
MaggieD said:
A horrible mistake? By whose naive yardstick?

A politician is the sum of all of his parts. His experiences, his social status, his income, his education, the neighborhood he lives in, his friends, family, religion -- everything. We do not operate, thus make decisions, in vacuums.We elect human beings, not computers. To call it a horrible mistake that Ryan recognizes that is just silly.
Click to expand...

yes very horrible IF thats what he meant

its very logical and reality based if thats how he meant because it would be an admission that his religion and opinion take importance over all else including the constitution, rights and freedoms we already have if they dont match.

Nobody wants him to live in a vacuum nor did I even suggest such nonsense I said that if he meant what he said thats is clearly bad unless he can in deed out good separation between the two.

I dont live in a vacuum and I can CLEARLY see and UNDERSTAND way I would HAVE to separate my religion and opinions from me leading because my religion and opinion dont all line up with the constitution and my fellow americans rights and freedoms. Its just common sense to me.
 
ksu_aviator said:
The 10th amendment actually gives a lot of leeway for interpreting what rights an individual holds. Certainly, if you combine the 10th with the Declaration of Independence, you can clearly come up with a right to life. So the debate begins. When is an individual bestowed with the right to life. Right to life'rs say at conception, Pro-choice'rs say at birth. The Constitution doesn't give us guidance, so it is up to the people to debate and determine the appropriate time to bestow rights.

You can also contest that the 5th amendment prevents the loss of one's life without a trial and sense the baby doesn't get a trial, an abortion is not constitutional.
Click to expand...

My political take on this is, one is bestowed their rights in this country when they become a citizens. Currently, there are two paths to citizenship. One is at birth and the other is through the INS.
 
Objective-J said:
yes very horrible IF thats what he meant

its very logical and reality based if thats how he meant because it would be an admission that his religion and opinion take importance over all else including the constitution, rights and freedoms we already have if they dont match.

Nobody wants him to live in a vacuum nor did I even suggest such nonsense I said that if he meant what he said thats is clearly bad unless he can in deed out good separation between the two.

I dont live in a vacuum and I can CLEARLY see and UNDERSTAND way I would HAVE to separate my religion and opinions from me leading because my religion and opinion dont all line up with the constitution and my fellow americans rights and freedoms. Its just common sense to me.
Click to expand...

So from this statement:

"I don"t see how a person could separate their public life from their private life or from their faith."
Click to expand...

...you've extrapolated this:

it would be an admission that his religion and opinion take importance over all else including the constitution, rights and freedoms we already have if they dont match.
Click to expand...

Check. Logic fail.
 
Fisher said:
If you believe that a politician should not use their private life or their faith as part of their decision-making process, then what exactly do you think that they should do? The reality is that people who say that in my experience just think that about the politicians with whom they disagree not the ones with whom they agree. If you have an alternate explanation as to how you can "100%" disagree with ""I don"t see how a person could separate their public life from their private life or from their faith" then go ahead and offer us something less subject to interpretation than "MOSTLY" apart. It isn't as if Obama governs devoid of a personal morality.

In the end, I doubt they will pass legislation that says "Abortion is now illegal". They will more likely pass legislation that would allow the states to take up dozens of new challenges as opposed to just 1 federal challenge like requiring states as part of Medicare to establish X, or regulate Y at least until they flip the Court.
Click to expand...

LMAO do you always just make stuff up?
who said it shouldnt be "PART" of the decision making?

thats right NOBODY, I said there should be a ability to separate them, they shouldnt MATCH because thhat would be a horrible leader unfit to be president
 
MaggieD said:
So from this statement:



...you've extrapolated this:



Check. Logic fail.
Click to expand...

LMAO maggie maggie maggie

talk about a logic fail

I wonder why in my OP and in my response to you that you choose to omit the parts where i say IF thats what he meant, guess you dont think thats important to the argument?

I agree, that is clearly a logical fail on your part ;)
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
I agree with Paul Ryan, you shouldn't separate most of your personal beliefs from your politics. If something is wrong then it is wrong :shrug: I want someone who when asked about abortion and says that he believes its wrong because it's a violation of human life will actually stand by that and not try to water down the atrocity of legalized abortion by saying it's a "choice" that you can't weigh in on.
Click to expand...

well if thats what he meant then like him, you would also make a terrible leader for president or america leadership.

ALso this isnt about just abortion, has to include ALL personal religious beliefs and thats the point. TO lead the US the constitution is more important than ONE persons personal beliefs.

I have no problem with him not liking abortion or thinking its wrong, I couldnt care less, im addressing what he actually said and wondering IF its true?

If its true thats the worst quality to have in a leader because it would mean his personal views outrank all else.

AGAIN im not saying this is true im saying I didnt like the statement because it leaves the possibility of being true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom