Rubio is still trying his hardest to win over the religious right vote Ted Cruz appears to have handily netted. During a Sunday discussion with ABC New host George Stephanopoulos, Rubio conceded that he might sign an abortion ban that provided exception for rape — even though he said he personally preferred for pregnant rape victims to keep their rapists’ babies.
Pro-life empathy, everyone. Pro-life empathy.
“Human rights issue”
The exception for cases of rape has always illustrated a major gap in the logic behind the pro-life movement. A fetus is still a fetus, whether it’s conceived by rape or by consenting sex. The only difference between the two is the consequences under which they’re conceived; one is done with the will of the mother, the other isn’t.
For many years, the idea that women would be forced to have the child of their rapist was so abhorrent that nearly all legislation regarding limits to abortion included language accounting for this exception. However, recent years have seen a change. As pro-life groups continue to bully Republican lawmakers into doing their bidding, there’s been a slow shift towards forcing women to have babies conceived in rape. It’s heartless, it’s anti-utilitarian, and it’s evil, but to pro-lifers at least it’s internally consistent. And it highlights how the “pro-life” movement was always those things.
Here to illustrate that transition from “I’m evil but you can’t prove it” to “Snidely Whiplash” is Marco Rubio, who told Stephanoupoulos on Sunday he preferred if rape victims kept their rapists’ babies.
Rubio started by noting abortion was “not a political issue” to him, but “a human rights issue.” He added:
I do require an exception for life of the mother because I’m pro-life. Number two, as I’ve said, if they pass a law in Congress that has exceptions, I’ll sign it. Because I want to save lives.
This led Stephanopoulos to wonder what Rubio would “say to that mom when you look her in the eye.”
To which Rubio replied:
It’s a terrible situation. I mean, a crisis pregnancy, especially as a result of something as horrifying as that, I’m not telling you it’s easy. I’m not here saying it’s an easy choice. It’s a horrifying thing that you’ve just described.
I get it. I really do. And that’s why this issue is so difficult. But I believe a human being, an unborn child has a right to live, irrespective of the circumstances of which they were conceived. And I know that the majority of Americans don’t agree with me on that.
And that’s why any law that passed will almost certainly have exceptions. And I’ll sign it.
It’s called a “fetus” Rubio, not an “unborn child.” And because of my utilitarian ethics, the non-existent happiness of a potential human being will always be subservient to the extant happiness of a real one.
Of course, I’m an ethical, rational human adult. Rubio is none of those things; he’s simply a monster, who will say anything to curry favor from his fellow monsters.
Watch the video below:
Feature image via Flickr