Ryan Doesn't Even Use the Word "Women" In his Views on Reproductive Rights

[Stephanie]

what a ignorant thread

 

[Stephanie]

Yeah, riiiiiiiight! women who are against abortion generall have many different reasons. But hating themselves isn't one of them. Paul Ryan has a very disgusting view of women and why choice is important. Hating children isn't it and if he really believes that, he is sick!

But of course, I forgot, you have that magic thingy that lets you read into someones mind and deduce without any evidence that Ryan hates women. How silly of me.

Try to keep up. I'm not the one who said Ryan hates women. Ryan did say very stupidly that people who have abortions and are pro choice hat children.

shut up, your thread is stupid..go back to slate

 

[JoeB131]

As soon as Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, the common wisdom coalesced around the idea that Romney was trying to shore up support with the Tea Party base on economic issues. But Ryan's extreme social conservatism likely had something to do with the pick as well. As Michelle Goldberg notes at the Daily Beast, Ryan runs far to the right even of most Republicans on the issue of choice. Indeed, his statements and votes on the issue start to seem like Ryan sincerely believes that a fertilized egg has more rights than an actual woman with a real brain and feelings.


Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, "To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:

At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices

.

This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.
...

What an out of touch ignoramus he is!

Link

Maybe he doesn't know where babies come from.

 

[Stephanie]

As soon as Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, the common wisdom coalesced around the idea that Romney was trying to shore up support with the Tea Party base on economic issues. But Ryan's extreme social conservatism likely had something to do with the pick as well. As Michelle Goldberg notes at the Daily Beast, Ryan runs far to the right even of most Republicans on the issue of choice. Indeed, his statements and votes on the issue start to seem like Ryan sincerely believes that a fertilized egg has more rights than an actual woman with a real brain and feelings.


Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, "To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:

.

This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.
...

What an out of touch ignoramus he is!

Link

Maybe he doesn't know where babies come from.

Oh boy joe..

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, riiiiiiiight! women who are against abortion generall have many different reasons. But hating themselves isn't one of them. Paul Ryan has a very disgusting view of women and why choice is important. Hating children isn't it and if he really believes that, he is sick!

But of course, I forgot, you have that magic thingy that lets you read into someones mind and deduce without any evidence that Ryan hates women. How silly of me.

Try to keep up. I'm not the one who said Ryan hates women. Ryan did say very stupidly that people who have abortions and are pro choice hat children.

I see him saying pro choicers see children as a burden, and uses the term denigrate life. I dont see the word hate anywhere.

Try to think as a pro lifer does. To them life starts at conception. Even eliminating a desire to ban abortion, wouldnt that make abortion immoral?

And lets look at one of the arguments a pro-choicer often uses. Isnt one of the arguments pro-choicers use is that a woman cant afford/is not read for a/another child? Wouldnt that translate to the child being a "burden"?

As for the denigrate life angle, Ive seen plenty of pro-choicers use the "mass of tissue" defense when called on the percived immorality of abortion on demand, and not for reasons of healht. Isnt that denigrating life, if you belive a fetus is life?

 

[JoeB131]

What an out of touch ignoramus he is!

Link

Maybe he doesn't know where babies come from.

Oh boy joe..

YOu just have to react with sarcasm when the people who say the government can run health care or retirement absolutely insist government can manage your uterus...

 

[Jackson]

Someone said eariler that Ryan was socially liberal. I was seriously taken aback. He's a guy who voted yes on a bill that would allow hospitals to deny dying women an abortion that could save their life.

Like I said, they don't care about women. Or babies, for that matter - which is why they never adopt any.

So I don't care about babies because I haven't adopted any? You are full of hogwash!

 

[JoeB131]

Someone said eariler that Ryan was socially liberal. I was seriously taken aback. He's a guy who voted yes on a bill that would allow hospitals to deny dying women an abortion that could save their life.

Like I said, they don't care about women. Or babies, for that matter - which is why they never adopt any.

So I don't care about babies because I haven't adopted any? You are full of hogwash!

I think it goes further than that.

If you guys were serious about wanting to reduce the number of abortions, you'd support a whole lot of policies you currently oppose.

Paid medical and family leave, universal health care, comprehensive sex education...

You guys just want to ban abortion, which never works. Countries where abortion is illegal, women still manage to get them.

I used to be "Pro-Life", until I realized it was more about misogyny than caring about what happens to the babies.

 

[courseofhistory]

But of course, I forgot, you have that magic thingy that lets you read into someones mind and deduce without any evidence that Ryan hates women. How silly of me.

Try to keep up. I'm not the one who said Ryan hates women. Ryan did say very stupidly that people who have abortions and are pro choice hat children.

I see him saying pro choicers see children as a burden, and uses the term denigrate life. I dont see the word hate anywhere.

Try to think as a pro lifer does. To them life starts at conception. Even eliminating a desire to ban abortion, wouldnt that make abortion immoral?

And lets look at one of the arguments a pro-choicer often uses. Isnt one of the arguments pro-choicers use is that a woman cant afford/is not read for a/another child? Wouldnt that translate to the child being a "burden"?

As for the denigrate life angle, Ive seen plenty of pro-choicers use the "mass of tissue" defense when called on the percived immorality of abortion on demand, and not for reasons of healht. Isnt that denigrating life, if you belive a fetus is life?

Someone else characterized Ryan as hating women. I think he is clueless as to why women seek abortion and to say it is because women find children repulsive is terribly wrong. I think pro lifers are mostly correct in their thinking about life of the fetus FOR THEMSELVES. But I draw the line at deciding FOR someone else through legislation about choice. I do agree with putting a resonable timeframe on abortion and cutting it off at a certain point but I also think 20 weeks might be a little too early when you consider that some women still have a period and might not know they are pregnant until sligtly beyond that time. I'd say maybe 28 weeks or something.

I'd also say that Ryan is a typical male chauvanist not having respect for women or thinking they are human enough to make their own choices.

 

[Pho_King]

As soon as Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, the common wisdom coalesced around the idea that Romney was trying to shore up support with the Tea Party base on economic issues. But Ryan's extreme social conservatism likely had something to do with the pick as well. As Michelle Goldberg notes at the Daily Beast, Ryan runs far to the right even of most Republicans on the issue of choice. Indeed, his statements and votes on the issue start to seem like Ryan sincerely believes that a fertilized egg has more rights than an actual woman with a real brain and feelings.


Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, "To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:

At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices

.

This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.
...

What an out of touch ignoramus he is!

Link

He also doesn't refer to the lefts embrace of abortion as an embrace of reproductive rights. Why? Because he would rather tell the ugly truth like it is, than use cutesy words and phrases to reduce the horrific act into something simple. Men take a very significant part in the conception of a child. We have a vested interest in whether or not a woman decides to kill our offspring, or saddle us with child support payments for. Eighteen years, and possibly longer. It is not a woman's issue exclusively. Only selfish bitches think it is.

 

[Full-Auto]

As soon as Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, the common wisdom coalesced around the idea that Romney was trying to shore up support with the Tea Party base on economic issues. But Ryan's extreme social conservatism likely had something to do with the pick as well. As Michelle Goldberg notes at the Daily Beast, Ryan runs far to the right even of most Republicans on the issue of choice. Indeed, his statements and votes on the issue start to seem like Ryan sincerely believes that a fertilized egg has more rights than an actual woman with a real brain and feelings.


Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, "To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:

At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices

.

This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.
...

What an out of touch ignoramus he is!

Link

That paragraph was on the money...........

But then we are not offended like the kool-aid crowd.

 

[Pho_King]

The overwhelming number of abortions are sought in order to protect the woman's lifestyle. No wonder men's respect for women is on the decline. Thank god I found one of the few decent women that finds abortion as simple birth control abhorrent.

 

[Pho_King]

Like I said, they don't care about women. Or babies, for that matter - which is why they never adopt any.

So I don't care about babies because I haven't adopted any? You are full of hogwash!

I think it goes further than that.

If you guys were serious about wanting to reduce the number of abortions, you'd support a whole lot of policies you currently oppose.

Paid medical and family leave, universal health care, comprehensive sex education...

You guys just want to ban abortion, which never works. Countries where abortion is illegal, women still manage to get them.

I used to be "Pro-Life", until I realized it was more about misogyny than caring about what happens to the babies.

You are a misogynist. Suddenly deciding abortion is a wonderful thing didn't change that. Most of us prolife men love and respect women and greatly admire their reproductive abilities. And we love children too. That is what informs our prolife position.

 

[hortysir]

what a stupid thread

but it's from slate A BLOG people..take it for what it's worth, nothing

From a Slate Blog about a DailyBeast article, at that!!!!

 

[courseofhistory]

The overwhelming number of abortions are sought in order to protect the woman's lifestyle. No wonder men's respect for women is on the decline. Thank god I found one of the few decent women that finds abortion as simple birth control abhorrent.

That's simply not true. Women are very often left with the task of paying for and raising a child. Men can protect their lifestyles by disappearing and walking away leaving a fatherless child who very often misses the influence of a father in their lives and has many problems and disadvantages because of that. If you define "lifestyle" as not being able to let's say work on a lower salary than a man and raise a child (most women's paychecks are significantly impacted by childcare), then I suppose you are correct. Women for the most part are also thinking of the child and the obstacles and disadvantages it will face. And if republicans really believe in personal responsibilty, they will allow a woman to take personal responsibility in deciding whether to raise the child or have an abortion. But simplistic thinking coming from most republicans like your comment above is no surprise!

 

[hortysir]

As soon as Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, the common wisdom coalesced around the idea that Romney was trying to shore up support with the Tea Party base on economic issues. But Ryan's extreme social conservatism likely had something to do with the pick as well. As Michelle Goldberg notes at the Daily Beast, Ryan runs far to the right even of most Republicans on the issue of choice. Indeed, his statements and votes on the issue start to seem like Ryan sincerely believes that a fertilized egg has more rights than an actual woman with a real brain and feelings.


Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, "To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:

.

This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.
...

What an out of touch ignoramus he is!

Link

That paragraph was on the money...........

But then we are not offended like the kool-aid crowd.

Curse is too thick to realize that Ryan is referring to men AND women when he says "liberals".




A nit-picking little bitch, s'all

 

[Douger]

(R)____ Women = Chromosome :

XX Say that fast 5 times

 

[Katzndogz]

Back to the war on women retread.

 

[squeeze berry]

As soon as Mitt Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate, the common wisdom coalesced around the idea that Romney was trying to shore up support with the Tea Party base on economic issues. But Ryan's extreme social conservatism likely had something to do with the pick as well. As Michelle Goldberg notes at the Daily Beast, Ryan runs far to the right even of most Republicans on the issue of choice. Indeed, his statements and votes on the issue start to seem like Ryan sincerely believes that a fertilized egg has more rights than an actual woman with a real brain and feelings.


Goldberg looks over this lengthy piece written by Ryan explaining his views on reproductive rights—a piece where he never even bothers to mention women—and she concludes, "To him, a woman’s claim to bodily autonomy or self-determination doesn’t merit even cursory consideration." Just in case he's left any doubt in the reader's mind that he simply doesn't acknowledge women as people, Ryan concludes that the reasons liberals are pro-choice is because we find children repulsive:

At the core, today’s “pro-choice” liberals are deeply pessimistic. They denigrate life and offer fear of the present and the future—fear of too many choices and too many children. Rather than seeing children and human beings as a benefit, the “pro-choice” position implies that they are a burden. Despite the “pro-choice” label, liberals’ stance on this subject actually diminishes choices, lowers goals, and leads us to live with less. That includes reducing the number of human beings who can make choices

.

This paragraph makes no sense unless you approach it with the assumption that the categories "women" and "human beings" are mutually exclusive. In order for the system of mandatory childbearing that he proposes to not decrease choices, women must be creatures who can make people but cannot be people. Of course, his belief that support for abortion rights is about child-hating instead of support for women is easy enough to disprove with the facts. More than 60 percent of women having abortions are already mothers, and most of the rest wish to be someday. When women offer their reasons for having abortions, "I dislike children and don't want to be around them" doesn't even rate high enough to make it into the data. Mostly the women fear that it's not a good time in their lives, and about half of them don't want to end up as a single mother.
...

What an out of touch ignoramus he is!

Link

because only women have reproductive rights?

 

[squeeze berry]

Someone said eariler that Ryan was socially liberal. I was seriously taken aback. He's a guy who voted yes on a bill that would allow hospitals to deny dying women an abortion that could save their life.

Like I said, they don't care about women. Or babies, for that matter - which is why they never adopt any.

proof?