In a creative political ad, Paul Ryan is attacked as having "OUT-OF-STEP VIEWS!" from a "BYGONE ERA!" Putting aside the distorted attack on his controversial budget proposal, the video attacks Paul Ryan as being anti-woman. The implicit claim is that anyone who is opposed to abortion in all cases has 'out-of-step views from a bygone era.'
The problem with this implicit claim is that it implies that the Catholic Church's views are from a bygone era and that these views are out-of-step. I cannot help but ask: Out-of-step with what? If we are speaking of the popular views, it is important to point out that more young adults are in favor or stricter abortion regulation than in previous years. It would seem that growing numbers of young people are 'out-of-step.' For more info on this claim, click here.
Or maybe Ryan's views are out-of-step with reality, which is a much bolder claim. How would somebody discern what reality has to say about what is right and wrong? The Natural Law! According to the Natural Law, however, it would be an unjust act to transfer punishment from a rapist to an innocent. Even in cases of "forcible rape," which brings me to my next point.
Since the "Akin Scandal," in which Todd Akin used the term 'legitimate' in order to qualify the term 'rape.' A flare-up of outrage rightly ensued about the comment and its context. Now, the furor is being transferred to language Paul Ryan used in legislation qualify 'rape' with the term 'forcible.' It is an effective distraction technique from the economy, which the majority of Americans views as the most important political issue. The problem, however, is that there is a legal distinction between 'forcible rape' and 'statutory rape.'
Had the context of Akin's use of 'legitimate rape' been different, we could have said that 'legitimate rape' is rape under the law including both 'forcible rape' and 'statutory rape.' Proponents of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the health/life of the mother, generally are referring to cases of 'forcible rape.' It is possible, that in cases of statutory rape, both parties are willing, in which case these same pro-aborts would be opposed to abortion unless it is also a matter of incest or the health/life of the mother.
So, it is simply an unfair comparison between Akin's "legitimate rape" and Ryan's "forcible rape."
The point, however, is that the 'mode of conception' does not determine the value of the life conceived. Rape, though we may not like to think of it as a 'mode of conception,' nevertheless, is a 'mode' or way that conception can and does take place. Furthermore, the intention or lack of intention does not determine the value of the life of the person conceived. So, persons claiming to be most pro-life rightly oppose abortion even in cases of rape (both forcible and statutory) and incest.
We should note, that the pro-aborts made sure that the term 'forcible' was dropped from the language of the bill. So, the bill went from opposing the funding of abortions except in the case of 'forcible rape' to except in the case of 'rape,' which can legally include statutory rape. So, even though Paul Ryan has attempted to oppose abortion and limit the cases in which it is funded, language seems to be a stumbling block. Maybe next time he should just oppose funding abortions in all cases like he actually believes. I say that but I think we all know how much harder an abrupt change to abortion funding would be to pass.