So last night Caison was watching an interview with some guy who is running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. He is Republican, and therefore, "pro-life." It's like a Girl Scout badge.
The interviewer questioned him on this stance, to which he gave all the prim and proper answers that give us good conservatives the warm fuzzies: "Life is sacred, I look at my own children, they're beautiful, everyone contributes to society, etc., etc."
The follow up question was "Are there ANY circumstances where you would allow for an abortion?" Conservative Poster Boy's answer?
"Rape, incest, and the mother's health are the situations that I could live with."
Or, in other words, "I believe that if the circumstances are ideal, then the life you are carrying is worth saving. Otherwise, go ahead and get rid of it. I can live with that."
Not that this is suprising. Most "pro-life" politicians are really "pro-some-lives." The term itself has become a flag that politicians who wish they could be conservative wave in the face of evangelicals to gain support.
I think I might rather vote for someone who was honest about his/her positions and skipped all the emotional verbiage they use when they describe themselves as "pro-life." I could live without seeing pictures of "pro-life" politicians' families, followed immediately by one or more situations where they believe it's acceptable for a woman to take the life of her child.
And no, I've never been a victim of rape, incest, and so far my life has not been endangered while pregnant. Suppose in the future I am - does that make the life of the baby less worthy? Does the fact that a woman endures hardship (and I am NOT demeaning that hardship at all) give her the "right" to take life? What kind of a society are we when we can say, without shame, "these are the circumstances that make life less worthy?"
0 comments:
Post a Comment